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

the resolution they had passed in the first instance,
they had omitted his name altogether. It was
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, guihy
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. towards
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 Hous3
in giving its assent to the motion of the Hon. Membe2
for Sheffield.

Mr. PROTHEROE 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 thought 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. Now, 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 sufficient to secure a convic-
tion. He was not going to defend the conduct of Mr. Long.
A clear case of yersonal bribery had been made out
against him, and if a presecution 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 had been held to bail, himself in 5001., and
two sureties in 2501. each. That indictment had sub-
sequently been removed by certiorari into the Court
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 dver 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 on 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 ease ; 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. SITG DEN 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. IVARD 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 Sutton, bur 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 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-
cause 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 would then be left
to the discretion of the' Attorney-General, which he
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, and afterwads to Swann.
With reference to what had fallen from the Honourable
Member for Woodstock respecting i is 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 form, 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 regarded
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 Tralee 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.

Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed
to Sugar Duties Bill ;—Turnpike Roads Bill ;—Stam-
ford Improvement Bill ;—Coundon Inclosure Bill ;
St. Ive's Fishery Bill ;—Selby and Leeds Roads Bill '
Brighton and Shoreham Road (No. 2) Bill ;—Middles-
borough Improvement Bill ;—Amendments to Copyhold
and Customary Tenure Bill, without Amendment ;
Turnpike Roads and Highways Bill ;—Northern and
Eastern Railway (Hertford and Ware Jranch) Bill ;
Shotts and Wilsontown Railway Bill ;—Edinburgh and
Glasgow Union [Canal (Cobbinshaw Reservoir) Bill,
with Amendments.

„ NEw SOUTH WALES.--The following extracts
from a Sydney journal show the increasing prosperity of the co-
lony. During the year 1840, 21,863 bales of wool were shipped
from Sydney for London, 5,410 for Liverpool, 70 for Bristol, and
344 for Boston, United States. The number of vessels which
arrived at Port Jackson was 331 ships, 123 brigs, and 72
schooners, exclusive of those from the different ports in Aus-
tralia. The number of steamers belonging to the colony was
13, and an additional one wars being built for Port Phillip, to
be launched in February.. The increase to the population
during the year had been 9,491, including 2,543 convicts.
Upwards of 2,000 more had arrived at Port Phillip. Abaut
8,000 of the attire number had come out under the bounty sys-
tem. Sydney supports seven newspapers, one daily, four three
times a week, one twice a week, and one weekly. _At Mel-
bourne there are three, twice a week. At Geelong one,
weekly. Maitland and Portland Bay will each shortly have its
journal. A Mutual Insurance Association exists in
_Sydney,
which has already received premiums upon upwards of 600,0001.