The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-10 00:00:00

SAVINGS BANKS.

Mr. HUME gave nove note that he would postpone
the motion of which he had given notice, respecting
savings banks, till the 2d of June.
MAY` GOTH COLLEGE—PRIVILEGE. _

Mr. SHEIL said that he perceivWilie Hon. and Gal-
lant Officer opposite had presented a petition this evening
from Liverpool, very numerously signed, with regard to
the College of Maynooth. The petition was crouched in
very strong language which induced him to read it, and
he observed that the names were written in
the same hand. It vas wrong to attach
names to a petition without the authority of
those whose signatures were attached. He therefore
wished to know whether the attention of the Hon. and
Gallant Officer had been directed to the names,
and whether the names attached to the petition were ap-
pended by the authority of those who signed it.

Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS begged leave to say
that the petion was put into his hands on coming into
the House, and he had not time to scrutinise
the names. But there was the petition itself. and
he, recommended the Right Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman to look over the names himself.—(Cries of
" Oh, oh !") His (Mr. Shiel's) well known acuteness
and ability made him much more competent to execute
that task than he (Sir H. Douglas).—(" Oh, oh !")
But he knew there was a strong feeling in Liverpool on
the subject.
Mr. SHIEL then gave notice that he would to-morrow
move that the petition be referrer:lA° the Committee of
Privilege, for the purpose of ascertaining and reporting
to the House whether there was not a breach of privilege
apparent in the form of the petition.—(Hear.)
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that he would on Friday
move for leave to bring in a Bill for preventing bribery
and corruption at elections.
SUDBURY ELECTION.

Mr. REDDINGTON rose to move for leave to bring
in a Bill to exclude the borough of Sudbury from
sending burgesses to Parliament., (There prevailed great
noise and confusion in the House owing to Members
leaving their places at the commencement of the Hon.
Member's speech.) He said he had to call the attention
of the House to another chapter in the history of corrup-
tion. He hoped he should be able to arrest the attention
of the House, and that the Right Hon. Baronet, Sir
R. Peel would not disregard the question, because it was
brought forward by one so humble as himself, and who
so long breathed the impure air of a Southampton
election. He was well aware that of all
privileges, the franchise was the most important,
and that it was one which ought riot lightly
be taken away. But at the same time time that he re-
garded it in that light, he always thought it was due to
those who honestly exercised their right, to protect their
suffrage from being neutralised or nulified by those
who used theirs corruptly.—(Hear. hear.) It was
with that view, the House had always marked its dis-
pleasure at corruption on the part of a Member, or of a
constituency, He thought he should be able to show
that the case which was now calling the atten-
tion of the House was one which ought to
be marked with the greatest severity. It was
true that even after Election Committees had
recommended the disfranchisement of a bo-
rough, the House had always been unwilling
to take away the franchise, without having
first ascertained all the facts in the fullest
manner, and the Report of the Election Com-
mittee had been referred to a Select Committee.
Not many years ago a measure had been brought in by
the Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, for

the repression of bribery at elections. In the debate on that
Bill the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworh,
and he (Mr. Reddington) would not wish for a more ar-
dent advocate for the suppression of bribery than the
Right Hon. Baronet. In that debate the Right Hon.
Baronet had said that what the House would require in
every instance of bribery before proceeding to a measure of
disfranchisement, would be to be well satisfied of the exist-
ence of the fact, and that the evidence required would be
such as would not only be satisfaCtory to this House, but
to the other House of Parliament also. The Right Hon.
Baronet hsd also stated that in his opinion the Committee
for the conducting of any investigation on such questions
ought to be nominated by the Speaker ; and that a Bill
founded upon the Report of the Committee, should be
sent up to the other House of Parliament. In the case
of the borough of Sudbury, all these conditions had been
almost literally complied with. The Committee had
been nominated nnder the provisions of the Right Hon.
Baronet's own measure for the trial of controverted
elections. So that it might be said to have been
nominated by the Speaker, who appointed the Com-
mittee of Selection by which the Election Committee
was chosen. He would now proceed briefly to narrate
to the House the circumstances which had occurred at

the last election for Sudbury. The nomination took
place' on a Monday, and the election on the Tuesday follow-
ing. Up to six o'clock on the preceding Sunday night,
neither of the candidates who were returned had made
their appearance in the borough. One arrived on the
Sunday evening and the other on the Monday morning,
and within 36 hours after their arrival they were both re-
turned as the Members for Sudbury. In some cases of
bribery certain corrupt individuals were employed,and they
endeavoured to tempt others into corruption in Sudbury,
there was no necessity to have recourse to such mea-
sures. The votes were bought openly in the market.
There were the hustings and two public-houses, and
the stream of corruption could be traced uninterruptedly
from the one to the other during the whole election.
He would now endeavour to show how many of the
voters of Sudbury appeared to have acted in this man-
ner. One of the first witnesses examined was a con-
stable of the borough of Sudbury. On the morning
of the polling this man stated that he saw a great
number of people run up to the hustings ; that he saw
also as many as two hundred electors come from the
black boy go up to the Hustings and vote for the late
Members. Now, what took place at that inn ? Why,
the number of persons there was so great that the stairs
nearly broke down, and when the parties were asked what
they wanted, they said they were going for their money.
lle thought after this the House would entertain
but little doubt what the course adopted had
been. That with respect to the Swan Inn,
the money was handed out to the electors
at that place by a person who had not yet been dis-
covered, because nothing more was seen of him than his
hands. The same crowd of people surrounded that
hotel, they got tickets, and when they had got
them they were told to go to a certain place,
and that there they would get four sovereigns for it.
He thought he had shown, at least, that there were
grounds enough for biiiiging in this Bill. He had
shewn that two hundred voters had been grossly
and systematically bribed during the last elec-
tion. It was utterly impossible that two can-
didates could have arrived on the eve of the election,
and have found men so perfectly organised as the voters
of Sudbury were, ready to go up to the poll next morning
in batches of eight and ten, the leaders returning to
take up other bodies of the same kind. Did the House
suppose that this was a recent occurrence in the borough
of Sudbury, or one of a usual character ? At the
election of 1780, the grossest bribery. was alleged
but the bribery of that period, was carried on in the
darkness of night, but at present it was not even so con-
cealed. He would also ask the House to look at the
evidence given before the Commissioners ap-
pointed to inquire into the condition of the
hand-loom weavers of Sudbury, in 1837, in
which evidence was given at a time and under cir-
cumstances more favourable for ascertaining the state of
the room, than the inquiry before an election Committee.
One gentlemen, examined before the Committee, stated
that, at the election of 1835, bribery had been carried
on in the borough to an unprecedented extent ; and he
added that he believed that if the sum given in bribes
was divided among the whole constituency, It would
amount to between 301. and 35/. to each elector.
(LEFT SPEA.EING)