The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-30 00:00:00

" Second—That the Chairman be requegted to move for
lea e' to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of
Stalk/TV

This reflwl at the f.nd of the Session (July 1833),
prevented any legßation !ill the following 1834. A
Bill of Disfranchisernewt then passed the Commons,
but the proceedings in the Lords on the Warwick and
Liverpool Election Bills occupica their Lordships the
entire Session, and Stafford remained in statu quo.
A Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, however, pas,;ed both
Houses, the Lords, on the preamble, examining, in
a Select Committee, witnesses who amply proved the
" loth-continued and general bribery and corruption"
prevalent in Stafford. The intervening dissolution of
Parliament, by the summary dismissal of the Mel-
bourne Cabinet, gave the corrupt burgesses a new op-
portunity of returning reresentatives, and Stafford,
not without truth, is said to enjoy " the nine lives
of a cat." Last year the 1117! a Disfranchise-
ment was again revived in the Commons, but the ro-
tracted examinations on the English Corporation Bill
0 sezin saved the borough another twelvemonth. This ;
session the Bill passed the Commons unopposed. The
Lords, on its arrival at their bar some weeks since, di-
rected the usual course of evidence in support of the
preamble, notwiihstanding the existence of their own
1833 Report, and their approval of an Indemnity
Witnesses Bill on which the Commons' inquiry was
founded. We will now briefly state the astounding
facts disclosed at their Lordships' bar, which we ab-
stract from the printed evidence, occupying 528 folio
pages. The Lords inquiry, in proof of the preamble,
comprises the election proceedings on four contested
elections, viz.:— .
A. D. Candidates. Poll. Money expenthd•
1826 Beaumont
Spooner
1831...,,. Campbell
Gisborne 522 9,200 3 0
Havv!so
1832 Chetwynd
Gronow
Blount , 476
1835 Goodrick
Chetwynd .. . 456 . 7OO 0 0
Farrand
Gronow
Wolseley

In gross... ..... ...£31,164 11 10
At all tiiese contests the grossest bribery was prac-
ised. At the three first, viz., in 1826, 1831, and
.

1832, the entire constituency, with few exceptions, ac-
cepted bribes. At the last election (1835) only 190
are distinctly attached with bribery, and those electors
solely in the interest of one candidate, Captafil Gro-
now. But all the candidates (Sir C. Wolseley ex-
cepted) openly practised the most unlimited treating
between the issue of the writ and the return, all the
witnesses admitting that money expended in treating,
if not in bribery, was essential to success. At one

intervening contest, viz., 1830, no direct bribery was
resorted to, but the most extensive treating practised by
all candidates, as follows :

A. D. Candidates. Poll. Money
expended.
1830 Gisborne 666 £2,286 5 3
Campbell 608 2,532 19 6
Hawkes 305 1,000 0 0

1830 In gross ...

5,819 4 9
31,164 11 10

826 1831 1832 1835

Total £36,983 16 7

The average sum in gross expended at five contests
in Stafford, in a period of -ten years, is 7,396/. ; and
calculated annually, is nearly 4,0001. per annum. The
evidence shows that the entire constituency, with tare
exceptions, was bribed in 1826 ; again in 1831 ; and
also in 1832 ; and one-fifth directly brii;%l in 1835.
Of the last-.election, however, it must be noted,
that the Disfranchisement Bill was hanging in terra-
rent over the heads of the electors when the preceding
Parliament was dissolved. The petition on which
Counsel defended the Borough at the Lords' bar, and
opposed the. rile, it, the most singular document. It
prays for inquiry, that they, the petitioners, may jus-
tify themselves from the foul "chargeoffiagrant and
general corruption." They only affirm to have been

;SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNAL

The Stafford Disfranchisement Bill, which had for
its object to exclude the most notorious and irre-
claimably corrupt borough from sending Members to
Parliament, was lost last night by a majority of 55 to
4. The Duke of Lei:ister, Marquis of Tavistock,
Lard Clatificarde, and Lord Duncannon, were the
only supportcr.s of the , Bill. Ministers, dnubtk,ss,
ithesaw the hopelessness of entire disfranchisement ;-
144 Lord Chancellor and Lord Melbourne both
pledged themselves to an ultimate remedy and punish-
nick
,-;! the delinquent constituency. The venal
electors have o;;.1"1 obtained a reprieve. Lord Clan-
.
ricarde, with praiseworLi.;
promptitude, immediately
after the division introduced new Bill to dis_
franchise the old burgesses, which was read a
first time, and appointed to be read a seeolij tile
on Tuesday next. Nearly the whole bench
of bishops voted against the lost Bill ; we shall now
see how many of the " Right Reverend Fathers in
GOD" will next week, by their support of the second
measure, discourage drunkenness, perjury, and other
election immoralities. We will briefly state the facts
of the ease against this infamous borough, as notorious
as were Sodom and Gomorrah of old. In 1832, the
first contest after the Reform Acts, the entire consti-
tuency, except about 10 per cent., was openly bribed.
A gelect Committee of the -Commons instituted a so-
lemn inquiry, when the Committee, formed of all
parties, Sir Thomas Fremantle Chairman, zzani-
inously reported d mass of indisputable proofs with the
following resolutions :
" First—That it appears td Ibe Committee, that the
evidence taken before them establishes a case of such open,
general, and systematic bribery and corruption, that it is
expedient that the borough of Stafford should cease to re-
turn Members to Parliament.