The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-15 00:00:00

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Mr. L A MBTON presented a petition signed by a
large number of the electors of Lewes, complaining of the
bribery, intimidation, and coercion which prevailed at the
election of Members of Parliament for that borough, which
the petitioners attributed to the frequency of elections, there
having been one on an average every two years for the
last thirty years, and as the petitioners believed bribery,
intimidation, and corruption to be on the increase, not
only at Lewes, but in other parts of the kingdom, they
prayed the House to provide a remedy without delay.
Mr. FITZROY objected to the receipt of the petition
under the circumstances under which it was presented.
Ho had cast his eyes over it, and found it was apparently
signed by about 200 electors. If these persons had known
of the practices they complained of going on for so many
years, he thought they had shown themselves unworthy of
the franchise in not having given the House an opportunity
of testing the truth of their allegations before a
Committee of the House.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
It was wrong in these persons to make vague and unfair
charges in petitions to the House, when there was a pro-
perly constituted tribunal where their accusations might
be proved, if true. He had known the borough some years,
and since 1835 had stood three elections, and the only in-
stance of bribery he had met was during an election at which
the Hon. Member for Leicestershire was a candidate—when
having got scent of the practice that was going on, be (Mr.
Fitzroy) put a person to watch the briber, who was detected
in the act, and an action being brought against him, he was
convicted in a penalty of 5001. He thought the ease with
which this offence was proved and verdict obtained, proved
that an extensive system of bribery could not exist,
and, therefore, thinking it was unfair that vague
charges should be brought in this manner against a pure
constituency, he should move that the petition should not
be received.

Mr. LAMBTON suggested that the petition should be
read by the Clerk.

Sir - GEORGE GREY said if the petition were
not brought up it could not be read. From what the Hon.
Member who presented it had said, he saw no objection to
its being brought up.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. FITZROY said be should not object to its being
brought up, but he should object to its lying on the table.
The petition was then brought up and read by the Clerk,
to the effect above stated.

Sir G. GREY said he heard nothing in the petition,
which should prevent the House receiving it. The peti-
tioners stated there existed at Lewes what they conceived
to be a grievance ; and he was, therefore, quite sure the
House would not reject it.
After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM and Mr. DARRY,
Mr. FITZROY said, as it appeared to be the opinion
of the House the petition should be received, he would not
divide upon it, but he thought it his duty to protest against
such sweeping accusations being made against what he be-
lieved to be a pure-constituency.
Sir. WILMOT presented a petition (row. Aston
against the Birmingham Police Bill.
Mr. ROUND presented a petition from a place in
Essex, in favour of Church Extension.

Mr. LEADER presented a petition from certain me-
dical practitioners, and other inhabitants of the parish of
St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, in the City of Westminster, in
favour of medical reform ; also, twenty-one petitions from
Montrose, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and other places in Scot-
land, praying for Universal Suffrage ; also three peti-
tioni from Bridgewater, and one from Glasgow, praying
for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. E WART presented a petition from Lancaster
against any grant for the purposes of Church Extension, and
for the abolition of Church-rates ; also, a petition from
Wigan, praying that Dissenters from the Established
Church might be exempted from the payment of Church-
rates.

Mr. B. WOOD presented a petition from Protestant
Dissenters in Rotherhithc against any grant for the pur-
pose of Church Extension.
Lord ADARE presented a petition from Limerick in
favour of Lord Stanley's Irish Registration Bill.
Mr. PALIVIER presented a petition from Bradfield in
favour of the present Corn-laws.
Lord CLEMENTS presented two petitions from the
county of Leitrim against Lord Stanley's Irish Regis-
tration Bill.

Mr. ELLIS presented a petition from Newry, against
the importation of foreign flour into Ireland; also several
petitions from places in the county Down to the same effect.
Mr. ELLIOT presented a petition from the Presbyte-
rians of Kelso against the payment of Church-rates.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM presented a petition from
Glasgow, against certain clauses in the County Constabu-
lary Bill. The Right Hon. Baronet, however, did not
coincide in the prayer of the petition.
Major MACNAMARA presented a petition from the
landed proprietors of the County Clare, against any al-
teration in the Corn-laws.
On the motion of Mr. F. MAUL E, the Report of
the Committee on the Banff Police and Harbour Bill was
further considered, and a clause added to the Bill.
Lord G. BENTINCK presented three petitions from
Lynn, in favour of Church Extension.
Mr. MORRISON presented petitions from Inverness
and other places in Scotland, agaimt Church Extension.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD presented petitions from I3ir-
mirigham and its neighbourhood against Church-rate, and
praying for the release of John Thorogood.
Lord G. LENNOX presented petitions from Sussex
against any alteration in the Corn-laws, against any grant
to the College of Maynooth, and in favour of the Clergy
Reserves (Canada) Bill.
Mr. G. KNIGHT presented nine petitions in favour of
Church Extension.
Mr. lIALFORD presented petitions from Leicester
against the grant to the College of Maynooth, and from
Luttcrworth praying for a reduction of the post-horse
and carriage duty.
Lord DUNGANNON presented petitions from Devon
and Gloucester in favour of Church Extension.
Sir S. LUSHINGTON presented two petitions against
Church Extension.
Mr. BLENNERHASSETT presented a petition from
the inhabitants of Enniscortby and its vicinity, county
Wexford, signed by the portrcove and 303 persons, in fa-
vour of Lord Stanley's Irish Registration Bill.
Mr. FITZROY KELLY presented petitions from
Woodbridge, and a place in Hertfordshire, praying for the
abolition of capital punishment in all cases except murder.
Mr. HANDLEY presented similar petitions.
Mr. PROTHE ROE presented petitions from variou

Dissenting congregations in Halifax, against any grant of
public money for Church Extension.
Viscount CASTL ERE AG H presented a petition
from a parish in the County of Down, against the im-
portation of flour into Ireland, and a petition from the
Board of Guardians of the Poor law Union of Down-
patrick in favour of the Irish Mendicancy Bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL presented various petitions in
favour of Church Extension, and against any change in
the existing Corn-laws.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented a petition
from the Chamber of Commerce, Edinburgh, complain-
ing of the manner in which the duty was now imposed on
railroads, and proposing that a tax should be levied on the
gross receipts of every Railroad Company.
Mr. LITTON presented a petition from a parish in
Kilkenny, in favour of the Irish Registration Bill.

Mr. hI ENE AGE presented a petition from the Corpo-
ration of Devizes, against certain clauses in the County
and Districts Constable Bill.
Mr. O'BRIEN wished to call the attention of the
House to a subject which he deemed to be of the greaten
importance. His object was to ascertain how the ques-
tion of precedence might he decided between five or six
Members who happened to be down at four o'clock, for the
purpose of giving notices. He was down a quarter before
four with Mr. Hutt. At four o'clock another gentleman came
in. He had arranged with Mr. Hutt that as soon as the
clerk had put down his name he should put down his (Mr.
O'B's.) Three or four gentlemen were standing around
the table, and a dispute arose —( Cries of " Order.") He
believed he was perfectly in order. His object was
to ascertain whether there was any rule whereby those
differences might be determined, and if so, what that rule
was. It certainly would be most desirable to have some
measure adopted by which that interminable confusion and
indecent scrambling might be prevented.
The SPEAKER said the rule was, that when the
Speaker took the Chair the paper with the notices of mo-
tions was put on the table, and every Member entered his
name upon it. He believed that no one Member could
enter the name of another. Every Member ought to enter
his nome. If the House were satisfied with the present
arrangemet, there could be no alteration except by adopting
the balloting plan.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'BRIEN said he wished to know in what manner
the priority—( Oh, oh !)—of Members was to be settled,
when three or four were standing together at the table, all
waiting to put their names down.

The S AK E —I apprehend that whoever first puts
his name down, will be called on first. —( Roars of laughter,
and cries of " Hear, hear. )

GRINDING CORN IN BOND.

Mr. H UTT gave notice that, on the 26th, he should
bring forward a motion respecting the grinding of corn in
bond.

CHINA.

Mr, G. PALMER said, as the motion respecting
China, of which he had given notice, had been so long
delayed, that its being carried could not now prevent hos-
tilities, he should not bring it on.—(Loud ironical chceis
from the Ministerial benches.)