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

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 11.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
The East Retford Court of Requests, the Gainsborough
Small Debts, the Canterbury Pavement, the Dublin Wide
Streets, the Scottish Insurance Company, and New-
ton Heathcote Estate Bills.
Stone's Estate Bill was read a second time and ordered
to be committed.
Mr. GROTE presented forty-two petitions from
London and Westminster, praying for an alteration in
the Corn-laws. Also, a petition to the same effect from
Worcester. The Hon. Member also presented a petition
from an individual of the name of James Surrey, of Bat-
tersea, praying that foreign corn might be ground in
bond for exportation.
Mr. STRUTT presented a petition praying for the
repeal of the Corn-laws.
General JOHNSTONE presented a petition from the
borough of Oldham, very numerously and respectably
signed. The petitioners stated that the Corn-laws were
contrary to every principle of morality and religion ;
and they. prayed that they, and all taxes upon food,
might be immediately repealed.
Petitions in favour of Church Extension were pre-
sented by Mr. Codrington, from . Gloucester ; by Mr.
Pakington, from seventeen places in Nottinghamshire
and Worcestershire ; and by Lord Ingestrie from Staf-
ford and Gloucester.
Petitions in favour of the Cizn-law were presented by
Mr. Round, from places in Essex ; by Mr. Dugdale, from
Warwickshire :by Colonel Rolleston, from Upton, Not-
tinghamshire ; by Lord Ingestrie from several places
in Staffordshire ; and by Lord Charles Manners from
places in Derbyshire, and from Ashby-de-la Zouch and
three other places in Leicestershire.
Petitions, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws, were
presented by Mr. B. Wood from St. Mary, Rotherhithe ;
by Mr. T. Duncombe, from Finsbury, and three other
districts of the metropolis ; by Mr. Ward, from Preston
and Teddington, in Yorkshire ; by Mr. Dunbar, from
Orkney and Argyleshire ; by Sir John Hobhouse, from
Nottingham and three other places ; by Mr. Gibson
Craig, from Glasgow ; and by Mr. Collins, from War-
wickshire.
Dr. LUSHING TON presented a petition from the
Minor Canons of St. Paul's Cathedral, complaining that
no compensation lihd been awarded them under the Ec-
clesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the
Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow against any alteration
in the Scotch currency.
Mr. MERVYN ARCHDALE presented a petition
from Fermanagh, praying for the restoration of the
Episcopal Sees, and in favour of the Maynooth College_
Bill.
Sir J. C. HOBITOITSE moved for certain returns re-
lating to the Importation of Hill Coolies.—Ordered.
Mr. BINGHAM BARING presented several peti-
tions in favour of Church Extension.
Mr. VILLIERS presented petitions against the Corn-
laws, numerously signed, from Ramsgate, from 'North-
wich (360 women), from Old Swinford (Worcestershire).
from Wilsford and Broniham (Wiltshire), from Yeovil
(Somersetshire), from the wood-sawyers in Bilston, from
Messrs. Hooper and Co. (Eastington Mills, Gloucester-
shire),from G uisborough,Langford,andllepton Hall,York -
shire ; operatives at the Junction Factory, Statfbrd ;
from the labourers in the parish of Haddenham, in the
county of Bucks ; and from the inhabitants of the borough
of Elgin, in Scotland.

postponed to Tuesday next tho mo-
tion of which he had:given notice, on the Order of the
Day for going into Committels of Supply being read, to
call the attention of the House to the injustice done to
the middle and lower classes of society by the present
system of legislation, and particularly by the existing
Corn-laws.

On the motion that the School Sites Bill be read a
third time,

CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.

Mr. FRESHFIELD said he would avail himself of
that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a
question he believed to be of some importance to the general
business of the House. He saw upon the paper a notice
of the Hon. Member for Sheffield, that he should move

,
that the Attorney-General be directed to _ prose-
cute the Honourable Henry Thomas Manners Sutton
and his agents for bribery at the last election for Cam-
bridge. The Hon. Member no doubt had given his
notice upon the supposition that this was a matter
of privilege. The Honourable Member might press
his motion, on the ground of the importance
of the subject ; but if he argued that it was
matter of privilege, it would then become necessary
to take the opinion of the Speaker upon the subject. Now,
he (Mr. reshfield, contended that it was not a matter
of privilege. It neither related to the conduct of a Mem-
ber of that House, nor was it a matter which in any
degree tended to obstruct the functions of that House.
These matters had sometimes been treated as matters
of privilege if the proceedings were recent; but this par-
ticular motion had reference to a by-gone transaction
of two years' standing. If it was to be treated as a
question of privilege, he hoped they would be favoured
with the Speaker's opinion on the subject.
Mr. WARD said that every one of the arguments
against his motion applied equally to that of the Hon.
Gentleman opposite, respecting the St. Alban's election.
Yet the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Wynn) was so im-
pressed with the opinion that it was a question
of privilege, that he made it a matter of grace
and favour to spare the House a discussion on
Monday, giving notice that he should bring it for-
ward before the orders of the clay on Tuesday.
Ho would therefore submit to the House that the cases
stood in precisely the same position, but even if
there was a doubt on the question of privi-
leges, the one case was as doubtful as the
other was represented to be, and he would put it to
the House whether in common justice the same facility
should not be afforded to the examination of the one as
the other.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir E. SUGDEN said there was a clear distinction
between the two cases, the one being recent, and
the other a bygone transaction of a former Session ;
but as there might be a doubt whether
it was
a question of privilege, and as no objection was made on
tithnenontfheprrisvidilengthe,atntehehSopt. Ad lhbaisn'sllocnasee.rwas not a ques-
press his objection, btallohwis tpoaHrtoyn clanimdo
. Gentlemen oppo-
site the same advantages
them-
selves.—(Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER said, that his opinion having been
asked whether the motion of the Hon. Memberfor
Sheffield was one relating to privilege, he answered that
he had no doubt that it was in no way a matter of privi-
lege.
But as the Honourable Member had given
notice of
his motion before the other Orders of the Day, there
could be no objection to his so bringing it forward, but the
Hon. Member could not claim precedence on the ground
that it was matter of privilege. If the question had been
I.lt to him (the Speaker) the other evening, when the
St. Alban's case was brought on, whether it was matter
of privilege, he should have had very great doubt
about the matter, but he was not inclined to
think it a question of privilege.—(Hear, hear.)
The subject was then postponed by consent until one or
two Orders of the Day were disposed of.

SCHOOL SITES BILL.

The School Sites' Bill was read a third time and passed,

BANKS OF ISSUE BILL.

On the motion of Mr. C. WOOD the Banks of Issue
Bill was read a third time and passed.
DOG CART BILL.

The Dog Cart Bill was also read a third time and
passed.
Sir R PEEL moved for and obtained leave to bring in
a Bill to amend the Bill, already in existence, for the
trial of controverted elections.
CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.

Mr. WARD then rose to make the motion of which
he had given notice, for the prosecution of Mr. Manners
Sutton and his agOnts for bribery at the Cam-
bridge election. He could assure the House that
he rose with great pain and reluctance to undertake a
duty with which he should never have thought of saddling
himself, except for the new reading which the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomery had given
him of his duty with respect to bribery at elections.
After quoting from the speech of Mr. Wynne of Monday,
he said the eases of briberyy in the blue books were so
numerous, that the only difficulty was the difficulty of
choice. There was the Evesham case where Mr. Borth- ;

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 had 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
the 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
the constituency. 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
the Member for Montgomeryshire as employed to de-
stroy the link of evidence between the briber and the
bribed.—(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 9/. 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
hus 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. Ma-
nners 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. If, 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 800/., 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 four 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 prosceution 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 theretore 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 adopted 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, thersfore, 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 Ba-
wnet. 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 the greatest horror of
bribery had done all in their power to shelter him.—
(Hear.) He believed a more flagrant 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
he 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
forward and for no other reason, as appeared to him
(Lord D.), than that his evidence upon a cross-examination
might militate against them. He would leave the House,
after a statement of these facts, to judge for itself
upon the case of Mr. Swan. He would next come to
Mr. Manners Sutton, against whom he thought the
Hon. Gentleman opposite had not established one single
charge. Let him be allowed to add, that so hard did the-
Committee think the case of Mr. Manners Sutton,
that, though he could not retain his seat, so guiltless
did they consider him of any kind of bribery, thp in
•