The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARL lAIVIBNT.
ROUSE OF LORDS, July 9.
Their Lordships met at Five o't lock.
DISSENTERi' CEIA.PIELS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM present,d a petition from the
Rev. Dr. Shepherd, in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels
Bill.

Lord RADNOR presented petitions in favour of the
Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Earl FITZHARDINGE pr esented petitions from
several congregations against the Dissenters' Cha-
pels Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON prey ented petitions against
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Earl of GALLO WAYpre seeded petitions against
the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
The Bishop of NORWICH pr esented petitions, from
places in Suffolk, against the Di asenters' Chapels Bill.
The Earl of RODEN presented petitions from Ireland
to the same effect. He heartily agreed in the seats-
ments expressed by the petitioners.
The Bishop of EXETER presented similar petitions
from various Baptists and other Dissenting congrega-
tions. He could not help remarking, that the measure,
as returned to their Lordships, amended by the other
House, was the most stultified in all its details that he
had ever read. The deed stated that the worship of
Almighty God should be celebrated in those chapels by
Presbyterian Dissenters, and yet a Right lion. Gentle-
man in another place had stated that this was vague.
Lord KINNAIRD wished to know whether the Right
Rev. Prelate was in order in entering upon a discussion
of the whole question, and in quoting speeches made by
gentlemen in another place.
The Bishop of EXETER said he had a perfect right
when presenting a petition to give his views upon the
subject-matter of that petition before it was laid
upon the table. He had, however, stated the
opinions he entertained on the subject, and would now
lay the petition on the table.
The Irish Marriages Bill was read a first time.
DIVISION OF PARISHES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The Duke of HAMILTON prayed their Lordships
to grant him their patience while he made a few re-
marks upon the pros: nt Bill. He had not been able to
attend on any former occasion when this Bill came before
their Lordships. The Noble Duke proceeded to expa-
Vate upon the effect which the Bill would have in the
country parishes of Scotland.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that discussion was un-
necessary, as the Bill was already passed.
BANK CHARTER BILL.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the second reading of
the Bank Charter Bill.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Thursday.
BROTHELS SUPPRESSION BILL.
The Bishop of EXETER moved the order of the day
for the third reading of the Brothels Suppression Bill.
Lord FOLEY moved, as an amendment, that the Bill
be read that day six months, :on the ground that there
was no sufficient evidence of the evil.
Lord GALLOWAY thought the Bill was presented
in such a shape to the House, that they could not, if
they wished to put down a vast amount of misery and
crime, hesitate to give the Bill their utmost support.
He felt that, in the whole catalogue of crime, there was
none which more loudly called for the interposition of
the Legislature than this.
Lord MINTO thought that it was a paramount and
incumbent duty upon her Majesty's Government to lay
before the House the best and most authentic informa-
tion on this subject. He wished to know from the Noble
Duke whether it was not the intention of her Majesty's
Government to introduce a measure for the same pur-
pose as that of the Right Rev. Prelate's ?
The Dukes of WELLINGTON said that, in reply to
the question of the Noble Earl, he had to inform him
that her Majesty's Government had informed themselves
upon the subject before the House, and he should wish,
in order to give time for further inquiry, and fur
the introduction of a measure under the auspices of her
Majesty's Government, that the Right Rev. Prelate
would not press the third reading of his Bill.
The Bishop of EXETER said that, under such circum-
stances, he would not press his measure.
Lord 510LINTCASHEL, after alluding to the miseries
induced by the houses which the Rigbt Rev. Prelate's Bill was
intended to suppress, said that he would, session after session,
bring this matter before them.
The Bill was, after some discussion, withdrawn.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 9.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.

The Colonial Postage Bill, the Three-and-a-Half per
Cents. Exemption Bill, and the Assessed Taxes Compen-
sation Bill, passed through Committee and were reported.
The Militia Ballot suspension Bill, the Stock in
Trade Bill, and the Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill,
were severally read a third time and passed.
VAGRANTS' REMOVAL BILL.

On the motion that the report on this Bill be brought
up,
Colonel RAWDON said that, under the operations of
this Bill, many cases of hardship would occur. He
thought it would be a hardship fur an Irishman, who bad
lived in this country for a number of years, and had con-
tributed to the prosperity of the country, to be sent to
Ireland in case of his becoming destitute.
Sir J. GRAHAM said this Bill was merely to con-
tinue for one year more an annual Bill. With respect
to the case of hardship instanced by the Hon. and Gal-
lant Gentleman, he could only say that such hardship
might occur to an Englishman residing in Ireland. The
subject, however, would be taken into consideration `by
the Government next year.
After a few words from Mr. Palmer, Col. Rawdon,
and Mr. Brotherton the report was brought up.
SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved the second
reading of this Bill.

The Bill having been read a second time,
Mr. BLACKSTONE moved that counsel b 3 heard at
the bar against the Bill.
Mr. M. D. Hill, Q.C., was then called in, and addressed
the House on the part of the mayor, aldermen, and bur-
gesses of Sudbury against the passing of this Bill.
He contended that the present Bill wholly differed in
principle from any former Disfranchisement Bill. It
proceeded on the assumption that certain facts which were
set forth in a report of some Commission were true, and
acting upon this assumption, and without any examina-
tion of witnesses, it was intended to punish a whole con-
stituency for offences which were charged upon a portion
only of that constituency. This, he contended, was a
case of peculiar hardship and injustice.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that, in his opi-
nion, the Learned Counsel who had just addressed the
House had failed to make out a case to justify the House
in refusing the second reading of this Bill. He (the So-
licitor-General) freely admitted that the extreme step of
disfranchisement should not be taken but upon very
strong and just grounds. But it had been clearly and
indisputably proved that a majority of the electors
of the borough of Sudbury were tainted by corrup-
tion. He admitted that if this strong fact had not
been made clear and indisputable, he would not be enti-
tled to claim the support of the House to the second
reading of the Bill. He (the Solicitor-General) had at
that time nothing whatever to do with other cases, how-
ever analogous. He had singly to do with Sudbury and
its corruption, as those corruptions had beer. proved.
And if the Bill ;passed, as he trusted it would—as he
was sure it would—it would undoubtedly act as a warn-
ing and an example to other places ; and this was one of
the greatest advantages that might be expected to accrue
from the Bill. It should be particularly impressed upon
the recollection of the House, that the Bill
which he now proposed was the third Bill for the dis-
franchisement of this borough that had been brought
before that House. Two other Bills of disfranchisement
had upon previous occasions passed that House, and been
sent thence to the House of Lords, where unfortunately,
from one circumstance or another, they had been stopped
in their course. And yet, after all these warnings, there
had at the very last election been practices of the most
gross and profligate character—thus showing the pre-
determination of the voters in this borough that their
elections should be carried by bribery and
bribery alone. No less than three thousand pounds
in gold had been received by a clerk and agent
of Mr. Dyce Sombre, one only of the candidates, and the
whole of this large sum had been expended in the most
disgusting mode of bribery, by parties utter strangers to
the borough. And yet the just and legitimate expenses
attendant upon the election—such as the printers', and
other necessary bills, were to this day absolutely un-
settled. There was a system in Sudbury of the most
atrocious character, which it was well-known had ex-
isted for years and years, and which was this :—When
an election was likely to take place every publican
opened his house to the world at large. At each
house a large debt was owing for expenses incurred
at the last previous election, and which debts always
remained unpaid from the close of that election to the
time when another was about to take place. These debts
were called "fixtures," and they were paid thus. When
candidates came down at an election time to offer them-
selves as candidates for Sudbury ; the first thing they
were presented with was a statement of these " fixtures.'
If the candidates paid these "fixtures" or debts due
from the last election then they were accepted
as candidates, and stood a fair chance of being
returned ; but if they declined to pay off these
" fixtures," then all they had to do was to pack up
and be off, for no chance would they have of ever repre-
senting the borough of Sudbury.—(Laughter.) Such
was the system—the disgusting system—which prevailed
in this notorious and profligate borough. All he asked
the House now to do, was to proceed on the evidence in
the book now upon the table, and at once to disfranchise
a place in which there was no nucleus for honesty and
public virtue. Where the franchise thus taken
from Sudbury was to be extended to, was
not then the question before the House.
That was.. a matter for after consideration ; and
therefore, confining himself to the only point strictly
before them, lie thought Hon. Members could, upon the
evidence now before them, have no difficulty in agreeing
to the second reading of the Bill for at once disfran-
chising the borough of Sudbury.
Mr. BLACKSTONE felt that if he attempted to op-
pose this Bill he would not be successful, as the Bill had
been taken up by one of the law officers of the Crown,
and came with the whole support of the Government.
He did not, therefore, feel called upon to make any op-
position to the Bill, although he did not believe that the
whole of the electors of Sudbury were corrupt.
On the motion for the Committee on this Bill he
should move, as an instruction to the Committee,
that the right of voting should be extended to the hun-
dred in which Sudbury was now situated, which had
been the course pursued by the Government with respect
to Bassitlaw, that place having been extended to the
hundred of East Retford. If he should be unsuccessful
in this, he should take the sense of the House upon the
principle of the Bill on the third reading.
Mr. TUFFNEL expressed his satisfaction at this
having been introduced. He trusted that the Govern-
ment would, on every occasion, do all they could to
put down bribery and corruption. He congratulated the