The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-21 00:00:00

All Advertisements of a Disgusting Character,
or immoral Tendency, are excluded from
the Columns of " The Sun."

tilt _Snit

LONDON?
SATURDAY MORNING, MAY 21, 1842.

There was a numerous assemblage in both Houses

last night, particularly in the House of Commons, but the
expectations of the Members were not gratified. Mr.
ROEBUCK made no motion ; Sir JOHN WALSH was
dumb ; Mr. C. BULLER merely asked whether he might
haveprecedence to bring on thequestion of Mr. WARBUR-
TON'S petition, concerning the immaculate borough of
Bridport ; but the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
doubted—Sir R. PEEL objected, and appealed to the
SPEAKER. The SPEAKER believed it was a question of
privilege, but one not for immediate and pressing cou-
sideration; and in spite, therefore, of Mr. MITCHELL'S
and Mr. CoctutANE's prayers to have the subject im-
mediately discussed, the House, on the motion of Sir
R. PEEL, passed to the orders of the day, and proceeded
in Committee of Supply, to vote the Ordnance Estimates.
The Members were, accordingly, disappointed, and re-
tired in great numbers, leaving enough in the House to
vote away the public money.
There have been for some time reports that the Tories
wish to stifle all further investigation into the alleged
compromises and bribery. As the matter stands at pre-
sent, the persons most marked are Whigs and Radicals ;
and if the inquiry were now to be stopped, the Tories
might escape some personal exposure. To limit the in-
quiry, therefore, Sir JOHN WALSH has given notice of a
motion to strike out the words of reference to the Com-
mittee, " whether such bribery has taken place in the
towns" mentioned by Mr. ROEBUCK. He wishes to save
the honour of the House and of Hon. Members. But to
stifle the inquiry is to augment the public suspicion, and
involve the whole House in the charges which now rest
upon individual Members. It will be better that the
disease be probed to the bottom, and be exactly defined
and described.

All that the public now know is, that in several cases
of contested elections, the parties concerned have been
so thoroughly convinced that if they carried the matter
fully before a Committee bribery must be proved, that,
to save themselves and their friends in the borough, they
have compromised their disputes, and have concealed the
evidence of their corruption. They did not wish to damage
the boroughs—those snug and quiet means of stepping
into Parliament, without performing any public service,
at an expense of 2,000/ or 3,oooL—and, as soon as the
contending candidates could agree amongst themselves,
they put an end to the inquiry. The public know these
facts of some six or eight boroughs, but the returns
from a much larger number were petitioned against, and
the petitions were withdrawn or never prosecuted, and
a suspicion of impropriety now attaches to every dis-
puted election.
The question now for the public is, how can such com-
promises be prevented in future ? How can bribery be
exposed ? It is clear the public have no right to expect
th at the candidates who are looking for seats should
ti4ier continue a contest after they have secured a
seat, or offend their supporters in every borough
by exposing delinquences, when they are sure they i

):4fef",
• m 44
4,emarissioo„,.‘,,.-4
.:70.;.1.
. ,