The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-30 00:00:00

CHICHESTER ELECTION.

The HON. MENIBER then presented a petition from the elec-
tors of the City of Chichester, complaining of the bribery and
corruption practised at the election for that borough. The
petitioners had hoped that the Reform Bill would have put
an end to these rnal-practices, which, if they were suffered
to continue, the electors might as well. not enjoy the elec-
tive franchise, as their opinions were not represented.
The petitioners suggested that the Ballot was the only remedy
for these evils. A dinner had been given after the last elec-
tion by the Members to upwards of five hundred of the
electors, and each of them received a ticket for twelve shil-
lings worth of beer and groceries exclusive of the dinner.
He (Mr. Ruthven) thought a dinnei- a very pardonable thing
—( A laugh)—but the circumstances in the case alluded to by
the petitioners were of a very different nature.
Lord A. LENNOX said, after what had fallen from the
Hon. Gentleman he did not think that he would be doing his
duty unless he got up in his place, and gave a perfect denial
to all that was stated in the petition, in order to connect him
with any system of bribery and corruption. He never had,
directly or indirectly, given any one thing that could be
considered as any thing in the shape of a bribe.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) -At the last election he had not even given
a dinner to his constituents, and he had even given up the old
practice of chairing, so determined was he not to go to any
expense that was not imposed upon him by law.—( Cheers.)
The Corporation of Chichester were certainly in his favour,
but they were so few in number that even if they were all
struck off the roll it would still leave him from 200 to 300
a-head of the third candidate.--( Hear.)
Mr. SMITH, the other Member, said a few words upon
the petition, but in so low a tone of voice as to be inaudible in
the gallery. We understood him to say that he had given a
dinner to his constituents, but he denied that one of them had
received a single shilling; and he challenged the most strict
scrutiny into his conduct and that of his committee during the
late election.

BOROUGH OF TIVERTON.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from Tiverton
against the Corporation Reform Bill, complaining that the
qualification for a burgess was much too low, and praying that
the Aldermen might be preserved, and a high qualification
required from them.

An Hon. MEMBER (Mr. lieathcote we believe) observed
that although he was not aware that the petition was to be
presented, yet he would take upon himself to state that the
petition did not speak the sentiments of the mass of the inha-
bitants of Tiverton. The burgesses of that borough would
not be affected by the Municipal Reform Bill.
Lord SANDON said that the petition was not against the
Corporation Reform Bill altogether ; it only prayed for altera-
tions in some of its minor points.
Mr. BLACKBURNE defended the conduct of the Cor.
poration Commissioners.
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. MILLER presented a petition from Newcastle-under-
Lyme against certain parts of the Corporation Reform Bill.
DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. E. L. BULWER presented petitions from Stamford
and Lincoln for the repeal of the Stamp duties on Newspapers.
The Hon. Member E,tateci that, col:side! hig if he brought for-
ward his motion upon this subjcet on Tuesday next, he should