The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-12 00:00:00

CAMBRIDGE ELE,TION.

Mr. WARD then rose to make the motion of which
he had given notice, for the prosecution of Mr. Manners
Sutton and his agents fur Imibery at the Cam-
bridge election. He. could assure the House that
he rose with great pain and reluctance to undcftake a
duty with which he should never have thought of saddling
himself; except for the new reading which the ;Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member i'or Montgomer-.7 hacrg:Ven
him, of his duty with respect to bribery at elections.
After quoting from the spt: ech of Mr. Wynne of Monday.
he said the cases of :bribery in the blue books rJere so
numerous, that the only diffkulty-w.:45 the difficulty of
ohoim There Tra:3 the IL7e-Laz.;; caw Ns, FK;rd4.

e

"MORNING EDITION

wick was dispossessed from his seat for an act of
bribery committed by his own hands. He might have
cited the Ipswich case, or that of York, but he preferred
to take the most recent case, and therefore he had chosen
the case of Cambridge. In that case they bad many things
which were wanting in the case of St. Alban's. In the
Cambridge case, the evidence of the witnesses was sifted,
and the accused party had an opportunity of making his
defence. None of these things were to be found in the
St. Alban's case ; and in the Cambridge case they had
a one-sided decision ; for the Noble Lord opposite (Earl
Darlington) and an Hon. Gentleman, one of the Members
for Kent, voted in the majority. It was a case
which had been too long overlooked, and, after what had
been stated on Monday night, could be overlooked no
longer. It was then stated that bribery was greatly
• on the increase—that it had become a trade, and was
conducted with so much dexterity that it was almost
impossible to be proved. Well, here was a
case which had been proved to the satisfaction
of a Committee of that House, why not make an example?
The Hon. Member for Monmouthshire said because of
the position of Dr. Webster—because he was not an ig-
norant man, but belonging to one of the liberal profes-
sions—his example was doubly pernicious. He quite
agreed with him in that. Well, here was a case in
which higher game was concerned—they had higher
game to fly at. Here was a gentleman who had
almost a hereditary right to a knowledge of
the rules and practices' of that House. Now,
he hoped he would have the honour of the Right
Hon. Gentleman's support on the present occasion, al-
though he found the principle and practice did not always
go hand in hand together. He thought there could be
no better proof before the House of the nature
of the bribery that was carried on, than the Report of
isle Committee appointed by that House to try the
merits of the petition. They reported that the Hon.
Henry Manners Sutton was, by his agents, guilty of
bribery and treating at last Cambridge election ; and that
an extensive and corrupt system of bribery and treating
was carried on among many of the influential members of
censtituency. These resolutions were carried by
majorities of five and six to one of the mem-
bers of the Committee. It appeared that the agents
of the Honourable Candidate were William Swan and
Samuel Long, and the latter appeared to be one of those
individuals, designated by the Right Hon. Gentleman
tl.e Member for Montgomeryshire as employed to de-
: troy the link of evidence between the briber and the
tribed.—(Hear, hear.) Samuel Long was proved to
have been an instrument in the bribing of two
electors, the one George Smith, and the other
William March. The case of George Smith was
to be found towards the close of the Report, and it seemed
to have been conducted with much cleverness and inge-
nuity on the part of Mr. Samuel Long. Smith was a
shoemaker, and Long went to him and ordered a pair of
shoes. On that occasion he gave him some advice as to
the duty of a poor man to disregard Politics, and to vote
as his own interests might require ; adding that he
could put a few pounds in his pocket if he voted
for Mr. Manners Sutton. At a subsequent interview
he tried not only advice but wine ; he gave wine to the
voter, and then told him, to cut the matter short about
the election, that he would give him 101. for his vote.
He could give 91. then, and he would receive the re-.
maining pound when he brought home the
shoes. He afterwards changed his mind, under
an apprehension, perhaps, of the consequences,
and told the man not to come himself, but to send his
wife for the money. As to bribery, he said it was all
nonsense and stuff.(Laughter.) " I suppose," said the
Counsel, " you washed that down with another glass of
wine ?" to which the witness answered that he be-
lieved there was another glass. The evidence of
Smith was confirmed by that of his wife, who stated
that she had received the money, and took it home to her
hug band. He marked the sovereigns with a file, and af-
terwards carried them to Mr. Francis Eden, who pro-
duced them before the Committee. The Committee was
of opinion, from the evidence adduced, that Long, against
whom the charge had been proved,wasthe agent of Mr. Man-
n ers Sutton. He would next come to the case of W.March.
The case of March was different from the case of Smith in
one respect only. March was a watchmaker, and a diffe-
rent mode of action was adopted. The agent went to
March and purchased a brooch, but precisely the same
mode of argument was used as had been used in the
case of. Smith. March was told that a poor man
like himself had little to do with the election, that he
had best look out for his own interest; he gave him wine,
and he (Mr. Ward) supposed, deducting a per tentage
from the bribe on account of his cleverness in bribing,
he gave March nine sovereigns instead of ten. March
had a conversation with Cooper on the subject, and
when Long accused him of having betrayed
March, said that he had no wish to injure Long,
but that he hoped that those who had employed him
would be punished. It' they really wished to put an end
to this system of corruption they should not merely pro-
secute the agents, but the persons from whom the cor-
ruption originated. It was sometimes difficult to trace
the corruption up to its source, but in the present instance
the links in the chain were more than usually complete—
so complete that they traced their agents as canvassing
with Mr. M. Sutton, and as in constant communication
with Mr. Manners Sutton's known and recognised agent,
as' ordering beer for the refreshment of Mr. Manners
Sutton's voters, which were all paid for to the amount
of 8001., by Mr. Fiske, Mr. Manners Sutton's
known and recognised agent. The House having laid
down the broad line the other night that it would pro-
ceed against the parties in all cases of bribery, he
thought it was bound to proceed in the present case
where a prima,facie case of bribery had been made out,
and the House if it wished really to put down bribery
ought not to proceed merely against humble individuals
like Mr. Webster, who was now declining into the vale
of years, and who had no longer the energy of youth
about him, but against individuals who, like Mr. Manners
Sutton, had had the honour of a seat in that House.
The parties who lodged three or fbur thousand pounds
in the hands of their bankers for the purpose of corrupt-
ing the electors, were the really guilty parties, and
ought rather to be prosecuted than those who were
detected in dealing out a fractional portion of
that corruption to the electors. The House,
therefore, having taken the line that it did
the other night—he did not say whether it was a prudent
line or not—were bound to follow up that course, and
the greater and higher the personages were against whom
the prosecution was instituted, the greater would be the
effect of the example, and the more effectually would
they put an end to those practices to which they
were desirous of putting an end. They 'would more ef-
fectually arrest the crime of bribery than by merely
proceeding against obscure individuals such as William
Swan and Samuel Long. He might be told that a
person who had not committed bribery in his
own person, but by an agent, was not guilty
of bribery. He (Mr. Ward) said that such a man
was morally guilty ; but he did not mean to risk
his motion on such a question as that, and
he had, therefore, in addition to the first re-
solution relative to the prosecution of Swan and Long,
introduced a second resolution, for which he would cer-
tainly vote himself, whether largely supported or not,
and by which further proceedings were directed to
be taken against the Hon. Henry Thomas Manners
Sutton, believing as he (Mr. Ward) did, that the links
connecting Mr. Sutton with his agents Swan and Long
were complete. He should therefore put his motion with
confidence to the House, and leave it with Hon. Mem-
bers to deal with it as they thought fit.
Sir C. LEMON said, as chairman of the Committee
on the Cambridge Election, he thought it was important
that the House should understand what were the
grounds upon which the Committee adopted their Report.
The Committee first came to the conclusion that the
. agents of Mr. Manners Sutton had been guilty of bribery.
It was suggested to them afterwards that they departed
in some measure from the usual form adoptedi by the
House, and they then altered their resolution to the
form of the second resolution proposed by the
Honourable Gentleman.—(Hear, hear, hear.) They
thought that the question which they had to try was not
whether Mr. Manners Sutton, in his own person, had been
guilty of bribery, but whether his agents had been guilty
of it, and they came to the conclusion upon the evi-
dence that they had been and were connected with
hlm. But he would remind the Honourable
Gentleman of the distinction drawn by Chief Justice
Abbott between this case and a prosecution in the
Courts of Law. With respect to Mr. Long, the
evidence was as clear as it possibly could be,
He net only gave the bribe, but he explained to the ,
party for what purpose it was given—namely, with
the view of influencing his vote ; and there
was not the smallest doubt that it Mr. Long had
been prosecuted at the time conviction would have fol-
lowed. The question,however, for the House to consider was
whether, after this matter had been allowed to rest for a
year and a half, it would be proper to commence
a prosecution. If not vindictive, the proceeding
would at least be retaliative. However worthless the
individual might be, he thought, after a twelvemonth
had elapsed, it was too late to commence a prosecution.
If the motion, therefore, was persisted in, he should feel
it his duty to oppose it.
The Earl of DARLINGTON concurred in the re-
marks which had fallen from the Honourable Be-
rm" It was needless to say that whoever might
be the individual concerned, whether of high or low
station, whether friend or foe, in any act
of delinquency, he would give his verdict
impartially. He was not present when his Hon. Friend
brought forward his motion with respect to Dr. Webster;
but he certainly was astonished when he found that a
number of Gentlemen who professed thegreatest horror of
bribery had done all in their
to shelter him.—
(Hear.) He believed a more flabant case than that
had never come before the House of Commons. He
would now address himself to the subject before
the House. Mr. Long (we understood the Noble
Lord) had undoubtedly been guilty of bribery, but
be ought to have been prosecuted at the time.
With regard to Mr. Swan there had been a good
deal of discussion as to whether he could be proved
to have been connected with Mr. Manners Sutton.
So far as his (Lord Darlington's) memory served him,
there was no evidence to show that Mr. Swan had
any personal communication whatever with Mr. Sutton.
There was a good deal of difference of opinion upon
the subject among the Members of the Commiteee, and,
for his part, he had voted that Mr. Swan's agency had not
been proved ; but the Committee having come to a
contrary decision, he afterwards voted that the
case of bribery had been made out. He would also
add that, though Mr. Swan'had been subpoenaed by
the Counsel for the prosecution, they never brought him
andfzward_.,. _
anfotrhno
.other reason, as appeared to him
kr:rgrhat "mitithtate his evidence upon a cross-examination
after a statement
them. He would leave the House,
upon the case ofet
fsthese facts, to judge for itself
Mr. Manners Sutton waagnainsllewiwioornuldhenetzhtoucgohmtethtoe
Hon. Gentleman o
bPra'silitoe had not established one single
charge. Let him
case
to add, that so hard did the
Committee think the
hint
oot. retain
r. Manners Sutton,
that, though he could not °t ot'
is seat,
so guiltless
ilk/. They consi I any kind of bribery,
.that in

the resolution they had passed in the first instance.
they had omitted his name altogether. It wa:
only in the second resolution they had come to,
after the objection of Mr. Austin to the first as
illegal and unprecedented, that it had been de-
cided that Mr. Manners Sutton had been guilty
of bribery through his agents at the election.
Mr. Sutton took no part in the election whatever.
He was applied to by the Conservatives to stand for the
borough, and he was required to pay 3001. toward
the expenses of the election. It was the only
part Mr. Sutton took in the election, and he did not think
a sufficient case had been made out to warrant the House
in giving its assent to the motion of the Hon. Member
fcr Sheffield.

Mr. PROTHERQE said it had been distinctly
proved before the Committee that the agents of
Mr. Sutton had contributed to a fund, the
avowed object of which was the corruption and
bribery of the electors. He believed, however, that as
far as Mr. Sutton was concerned individually that he
stood as clear as any man could who represented
one of those old and corrupt constituencies.--(Hear,
hear.) It certainly appeared to him that much more
blame ought to be attributed to the electors than
the candidates, for it was impossible to ex-
ercise any influence over the constituencies
without falling into the corrupt practices that prevailed
in these boroughs; and on these grounds he objected to
the prosecution of Mr. Sutton.
Mr. THESIGER thought it was quite impossible
that any success could follow the prosecution of the
individuals who were named in the resolution
of the Hon. Member. It appeared to him that
the sole object for which it was brought
forward was to meet a resolution emanating from his
side of the House. It was not consistent with the
dignity of that House to proceed upon a spirit of
retaliation.—(Cheers.) Each case should stand
upon its own merits, and it was no light mat-
ter to direct a prosecution against a gentleman,
to meet the wishes of his political opponents.
He thohght that the House ought to be very careful in-
deed before it sanctioned the carrying on of such a
prosecution as that proposed by the Hon. Member for
Sheffield. He would not refer to what had taken place a
few nights since—(Cheers from the Ministerial benches)
—because he considered that it had nothing to do with the
present investigation. For his own part, if he thought
that the case now under the consideration of the House
called for prosecution, he would have given his vote in
favour of the • Honourable Member for Sheffield.
What was the state of the parties in the present case ?
There were three parties before the House, Mr. M.
Sutton, Mr. Swann, and Mr. Long. Nov, he
was ready to admit that if either Mr. Long or
Mr. Swann had been guilty of bribery with the know-
ledge of Mr. Manners Sutton, he would have been
as much implicated as any of these parties ; but no
person would venture to say that such was the case.
There was, therefore, not the slightest pretence for the
present prosecution, and he submitted to the House, whe-
ther it would not, by adopting the present motion,
place itself in a most odious situation with the country.
Against Mr. M. Sutton there was no case, against Mr.
Swann there was no case sufficiont to secure a convic-
tion. He was not going to defend the conduct of Mr. Long.
A clear case of personal bribery had been made out
against him, and if a prosecution were instituted against
him there could be no doubt but that it must be followed
by conviction. But perhaps the House was not aware
that at the present moment there was a prosecution
against Mr. Long. After the Borough Session in
1840, he had been taken before a bench of Magistrates,
on a warrant issued by Professor Henslow for bribery,
and hal been held to bail, himself in 500/., and
two sureties in 2501. each. That indictment had sub-
sequently been removed by certiorari into the Court of
Queen's Bench, and it was ripe for trial in the spring of
1840. But the attorney for the prosecution, who was also
the attorney for the prosecution against Mr. Manners
Sutton, had met Long., and an agreement had been en-
tered into between them that the prosecution should be
foregone provided Long would give evidence, before the
Committee, against Mr. M. Sutton. He had stated to
that attorney that at the Eagle Mr. Mitchell had, in the
presence of Mr. M. Sutton, handed over to him, Long,
forty sovereigns for the purpose of bribing" the
electors, but when he appeared before the Com-
mittee on his oath he denied the whole statement.
He (Mr. Thesiger) would not defend the integrity of
Long • but however worthless he might be, it was much
more likely that when speaking under the obligation of
an oath he would speak the truth, than when speaking
to the agents of the opposing candidates. He appealed
to the Attorney-General whether he had ever known of
a person being criminally indicted for acts of which he
had no personal knowledge or cognizance. The parties
who actually bribed were liable to action and to penalty,
but he trusted they would not introduce a principle un-
recognised in law, and which could not be attended
with any success.—(Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had not oh the for-
mer occasion, and he should not on the present, offer.
any opinion whatever upon the matter ; because sitting
in that House as the public officer of the Government,
it might devolve upon him afterwards to prosecute these
parties.—(Hear, hear.) He did not think it would be
decent for him, under such circumstances, to say anything
upon the merits of the case ; and he did not think his
Hon. and Learned Friend had exercised a sound discre-
tion in making an appeal to him.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir E. SUGDEN said that there was no ground
whatever for instituting a prosecution against Mr. Man-
ners Sutton, because his name had been very reluctantly
introduced into the resolution by the Committee, on the
suggestion of Mr. Austin, who said that otherwise the
resolutions would be inoperative. He denied that there
was any ground for imputing personally to Mr. Sutton
any share in the bribery that had taken place. He should
certainly oppose the motion.
Mr. WARD said, after the expression of the opinion
of the house that had been given, he did not mean to
divide it upon the second resolution with regard to Mr.
Manners button, but he thought he was justified in
pressing the resolution with regard to his agents (Messrs.
Swann and Long) to a division, because they had been
proved to have been guilty of the grossest bribery and
corruption.

Lord J. RUSSELL said it appeared to him that the
Hon. Member had acted judiciously in withdrawing the
second resolution ; and with rospect to the two parties
to whom the first resolution referred, Swann had not taken
any active part in the matter, and it would require addi-
tional evidence to bring the charge home to him ; but it
was clear that a case of gross bribery had been made out
with regard to Long ; and that the House might, in his
case, very properly interfere. He would recommend to
the Hon. Member for Sheffield, therefore, to separate
these two parties, and bring forward a resolution with
respect to Long only.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. WYNN said he should be very sorry to see a
prosecution for bribery entertained where the bribery
was by agents only, without proof of knowledge, be; it would interfere with the Committee, and prevent
them doing that with respect to the sitting Member,
which they could legally do, though there were no grounds
for prosecution.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he thought the
object of the prosecution would be fully gained, by passing
the resolution now moved, because it wou.d then be left
to the discretion of the Attorney-General, which ho
hoped would be faithfully exercised, as to the mode in
which the prosecutions should be instituted.—(Hear.)
Mr. HOBHOUSE hoped his Hon Friend would have
no objection to put his motion in the technical form that
would be agreeable to the House, and for his own part
he should give it his support.
Mr. WARD said he should not object to the propo-
sal of the Noble Lord, to place two resolutions in
the hands of the Speaker, making the prosecution apply
in the first instance to Long, alid afterwads to Swann.
With reference to what had fallettlfrom the Honourable
Member for Woodstock respecting its being derogatory
to the dignity of the House to institute retaliatory pro-
secutions, he begged to observe that there was a spirit of
consistency as well as of retaliation, and it was his opi-
nion the House would best consult its dignity by showing
its impartiality.—(Cheers.) He would, therefore, re-
quest leave to put the resolution in a twofold harm, the
first with reference to Samuel Long, and the second with
reference to William Swann.—(Hear, hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw ; we un-
derstood that in our absence the motion, as regarded
Mr. Long, was agreed to, and on the resolution, as re-
garded Mr. Swan, the Housedivided, when the numbers
were—

For the motion 7B
Against the motion 46
Majority
—32
The resolution for the prosecution of both parties was
therefore carried.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the Report
upon the Bribery at Elections Bill was agreed to, and the
Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
The Ecclesiastical Commissioners Bill was ordered to
be committed to-morrow.
The Church-rates Abolition Bill was withdrawn.
The Tr lee Navigation and Harbour Bill was read a
third time, and passed.
• The further consideration of the Debts of Parishes
Bill was adjourned till to-morrow.
HERTFORD REGISTRY.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE obtained leave to bring in a
Bill more effectually to enforce the printing, and the
speedy delivery, at a reasonable price, of copies of the
registry of electors in England and Wales ; and to
make provision for the printing of the registry of the
present year of the electors of the county of Hertford.
The remainder of the business was then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at a Quarter after Eight
o'Clock, until to-morrow.

BENEFIT FOR ASTLEY'S
Anderson, the most successful performer in his line of the pre-
sent day, or perhaps any other, has generously come forward
to relieve brother performers in digress. It is well known
tt:at great numbers of persons have been thrown out of em-
ployment by the destruction of Astley's Amphitheatre, and
that un'e!s some assistance be granted, their families will Le
reduced to great. distress. Drury-lane is to be thrown open
for a benefit to Ducrow, and Mr. Anderson, judging properly
that many others may be equally deserving of relief, has hand-
, somely offered to perform at the Adelphi theatre on Monday
next for the benefit of the company. We have no doubt that
the public, who have been so often delighted by their perf -
mances, will cordially support Mr. Anderson in this work of
charity.
On Wednesday morning the following feightful
gig accidents occurred in the New-road, St. Marylebone- A
horse, in harness, having part of the body of a gig and tl e
shafts attached, came galloping along the New-road, towards
Marylebone, at a furious rate, from the direction of Battle-
bridge. At the corner of Cleveland-street, New-road, he
turned suddenly down that street, at the moment a Mrs. Ann
Bennett (the wife of a police eonstah'e), accompanied by her
father, turned into the street from Cirencester-place, and the
shaft, striking her on the side of the head, fractured her skull
in so shocking a manner that no hopes Are entertained of her
recovery. Her father has also received serious injuries. The
horse afterwards turned agaiss into the New-road, and, in his
progress, three other persons received dreadful injuries, and
were removed to St. Marylebone Infirmary. The animal
was secured near the Yorkshire Stingo. It was unknown who
at belonged to, or where it came from.