Commons Sitting of 11 June 1841

Preamble
MINUTES.) Bills. Read a first time:—Election Petitions Trial.—Read a second time:—Appropriation; Militia Pay —Read a third time:—School Sites; Banks of Issue; Dog Carts.
Petitions presented, By Mr. Grote, Mr. Feilden, General Johnson, Mr. Ward, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Villiers, and Lord Elliot, from London, Westminster, Todmordon, Oldham, Rotherham, Yorkshire, Ramsgate, Cornwall, and a great many other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—Bj Mr. Round, Colonel Rolleston, Viscount Ingestrie, Lord C. Manners, and others, from Essex, Nottinghamshire, Dorsetshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire, and other places, against Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Dr. Lushington, from the Minor Canons of St. Paul's, against certain parts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Bill—By Mr. Pakington, from Nottinghamshire, In favour of Church Extension.

SITES FOR SCHOOLS—PRIVILEGE AND BUSINESS.
Sir George Greymoved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the School Sites Bill (No. 2.)
Mr. Freshfielddid not mean to oppose the order of the day, but begged to avail himself of that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a subject that he deemed of some importance to the general business transacted within these walls. He observed on the paper a notice given by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward), "to move, before the orders of the day, 1. That a Committee of the House of Commons having reported, that the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the election for the borough of Cambridge,' Mr. Attorney-general be directed to prosecute William Swan and Samuel Long, the principal agents of the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton for bribery. 2. That Mr. Attorney-general be also directed to prosecute the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton for bribery at the election for the borough of Cambridge," The hon. Member for Sheffield had, no doubt, given this notice under a supposition, that the matter to which it referred was a matter of privilege. He, however, contended, that it was not a matter of privilege, and, consequently, that it could have no claim whatever to take precedence of the orders of the day. It did not relate to the conduct of any Member of the House, nor was it a matter of such, recent occurrence as could in any degree tend to obstruct the functions of the House therefore it could not be regarded as a, matter of such urgent necessity as to entitle it to the precedence which the hon. Member for Sheffield sought to obtain for it. Perhaps Mr. Speaker would favour the House with

1461
his opinion as to whether it could be regarded as matter of privilege or not.
Mr. Wardhad only one fault to find with the objection of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and that was, that it was not made at the time that the notice was given. He contended, that this case of the Cambridge election which he now sought to bring forward, was exactly analogous to the case of the St. Alban's election, brought forward and discussed the other evening as a matter of privilege by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Williams Wynn). There was no pretence for saying that any objection that would be good against the one would not be equally good against the other. In the St. Alban's case, the transaction was a by-gone transaction, quite as much as the transaction in the Cambridge case. He (Mr. Ward), therefore, submitted to the House that the two eases stood in precisely the same position; and if Mr. Speaker should decide upon the question of privilege, that the one was as doubtful as the other was represented to be, he (Mr. Ward) should still put it to the House, whether, in fairness and justice, after the discussion of the other night, he could be denied the opportunity of submitting the motion of which he had given notice.
Mr. Freshfieldthought, that there was no parallel between the two cases of St. Alban's and Cambridge; the one was a recent, the other a remote transaction.
Sir E. Sugdenalso thought, that there was an essential distinction between the two cases, and that the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield could claim no precedence as a matter of privilege. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend would not persist in his objection, but allow the hon. Gentleman the same indulgence as was conceded a few evenings ago to the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
The Speaker,having been asked for his opinion as to whether the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) could come on as a matter of privilege, had no hesitation in declaring, that the subject was in no way a matter of privilege. The hon. Member had given notice that he would move it before the orders of the day. If the House did not interfere to prevent it, there could be no objection to his taking that course; but the hon. Member had no claim to precedence on the ground of privilege. With respect to the motion brought forward the other evening by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Mont-
1462
gomeryshire (Mr. W. Wynn), if that motion had been objected to, and the question put to him (the Speaker) as to whether it could be brought forward as a matter of privilege, he (the Speaker) should certainly have had great doubt upon the point. He did not think that it could have been brought on strictly as a matter of privilege. It had, however, been the general, though not the uniform custom of the House, to give precedence to matters growing out of Section committees.
Mr. Wardfelt, then, that he must throw himself entirely upon the kindness of the House. He asked whether, in common justice, after the motion of the other night, the House could now refuse him the opportunity of bringing forward the subject of the Cambridge election.
Bill read a third time and passed.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Sir R. Peelstated, that some time since the committee elections made some suggestions of a trifling and formal nature, for the amendment of some of the provisions of the Act for the trial of Controverted Elections. It would, of course, be matter of great importance that those amendments should be adopted prior to the meeting of a new Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that the House would give him leave to bring in a bill, to amend the act relating to the trial of Controverted Elections.
Leave given.

CAMBRIDGE ELECTION.
Report of Committee on the Cambridge Election, 29th April, 1840, was on the motion of Mr. Ward, read as follows:—
"Sir Charles Lemon further reported, that the committee had agreed to the following resolutions:—
"That it appears to this committee, that the hon. John Henry Thomas Manners Sutton, was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last election for the borough of Cambridge,
"That it appears, from the evidence taken before the committee, that an extensive and corrupt system of treating, prevailed on the part of many influential Members of the constituency, at the last election for the borough of Cambridge."
Mr. Wardrose, with, very great pain and reluctance, to undertake a duty which he should never have dreamed of saddling himself with, but for the new reading of his Parliamentary duties, as a Member of thud House which was given to him the other night, by

1463
the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire. The opinion of that right hon. Gentleman carried great weight with it in all matters relating to the laws, customs, and privileges of the House; and there was no man to whose judgment he (Mr. Ward), would more willingly bow upon all such subjects. How was the law which ought to govern the House, in cases where bribery was alleged against individuals at elections for Members to serve in Parliament, expounded by the right hon. Gentleman the other evening? The right hon. Gentleman said:—
"Even where the evidence of bribery was incomplete, the House would not discharge its duty properly if it did not send the case into a court of justice—that a prima facie case was all that the House required—that the House stood in the position of a grand jury in such cases, and that it was its bounden duty to take care that the law did not sleep and become a dead letter. If they did not, all their debating upon bills relating to bribery would be mere idle talk and waste of time."
On these grounds the right hon. Gentleman moved—
"That the Attorney-general be directed to prosecute Richard Webster, for bribery at the last St. Alban's election."
The hon. Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Dugdale), in the course of the discussion which took place upon that motion, said:—
"He thought it desirable that special notice should be taken of the present case, particularly before the general election, in order that the borough of St. Alban's might have the opportunity of wiping out the stain that rested upon it."
St. Alban's did not stand alone in this respect; there were other boroughs to which a similar stain was attached, and it was highly desirable that all these boroughs, as well as the borough of St. Alban's should, have the opportunity of wiping out the stains that were so discreditable to them, before they were again called upon to exercise their elective rights. The hon. Member for Warwickshire, (Mr. Dugdale) said, that
"If Dr. Webster were not guilty of the offence alleged against him, in the report of the election committee, it would in fact be an act of kindness on the part of the House to direct the prosecution, as it would furnish him the opportunity of proving his innocence."
And the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), said; that the House, in assenting to the
1464
motion of the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. W. Wynn), did not dream of punishing Dr. Webster, but was merely going to put him on his trial (The resolution), said the hon. Baronet,
"Was not condemnatory of Dr. Webster; but it was intended to send him to trial. And was there, or was there not, sufficient evidence in the Blue Book, to subject him to the ordeal of a tribunal of his country."
Such were the grounds upon which the motion of the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire was supported on Tuesday last. Now, St. Alban's, as he had already stated, was not singular in the vice of bribery. Many other boroughs had incurred a similar stain; so many, that the only difficulty when a case was looked for was the difficulty of choice. There was the Evesham case, where Mr. Borthwick was dispossessed of his seat for an act of bribery committed by his own hands; and there were many others to which he might refer, but he preferred to take the most recent case, and therefore had chosen the case of Cambridge. In that case they had many things which were wanting to complete the case of St. Alban's. In the Cambridge case the evidence of the witnesses was sifted, and the accused party had an opportunity of making his defence. None of these things were to be found in the St. Alban's case; and in the Cambridge case they had a one-sided decision; for the noble Lord opposite (Earl Darlington) and an hon. Gentleman, one of the Members for Kent, voted in the majority. The only individual who opposed the resolution of the Cambridge committee was the hon. Baronet, the Member for Radnorshire. It was a case which had been too long overlooked; and, after what had been stated on Monday night, could be overlooked no longer. It was stated, that bribery was greatly on the increase; that it had become a trade, and was conducted with so much dexterity, that it was almost impossible to be proved. In the Cambridge case bribery had been proved to the satisfaction of a Committee of that House, then why not make an example? The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomeryshire, said, the other night that the situation in life of Dr. Webster greatly aggravated the offence with which he was charged, and that his example as a member of a liberal profession was likely to be doubly pernicious. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gen-

1465
tleman in that sentiment; but in the present instance he thought the right hon. Gentleman would see that he was flying at higher game. In the Cambridge case they had to deal with a Gentleman who had' a sort of hereditary claim to a knowledge of the rules and practice of that House. He hoped, therefore, that he should have the honour of the right hon. Gentleman's support on the present occasion, although he found that principle and practice did not always go hand in hand. He thought there could be no better proof of the nature of the bribery that was carried on at Cambridge, than the report of the committee appointed by that House to try the merits of the petition. They reported, that the hon. Henry Manners Sutton was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the last Cambridge election; and that an extensive and corrupt system of bribery and treating was carried on among many of the influential members of the constituency. These resolutions were carried by majorities of five and six to one of the Members of the committee. It appeared, that the agents of the hon. Candidate were William Swan and Samuel Long, and the latter appeared to be one of those individuals who came within the description of the gallant Member for Donegal (Colonel Conolly); one of those who
"Had learnt to bribe without being discovered, and how to destroy the links of evidence between the briber and the candidate, thus defeating Parliament, frustrating justice, and leaving the delinquency unpunished."
Samuel Long was proved to have been an instrument in the bribing of two electors, the one George Smith, and the other William Marsh. The case of George Smith was to be found towards the close of the report, and it seemed to have been conducted with much cleverness and ingenuity on the part of Mr. Samuel Long. Smith was a shoemaker, and Long went to him and ordered a pair of shoes. On that occasion he gave him some advice as to the duty of a poor man to disregard politics, and to vote as his own interests might require; adding that he could put a few pounds in his pocket if he voted for Mr. Manners Sutton. At a subsequent interview he tried not only advice but wine; he gave wine to the voter, and then told him to cut the matter short about the election, that he would give him 10 l. for his vote. He could give him 9l. then, and he
1466
would receive the remaining pound when he brought home the shoes. He afterwards changed his mind, under an apprehension, perhaps, of the consequences, and told the man not to come himself, but to send his wife for the money. As to bribery, he said it was all nonsense and stuff. "I suppose," said the counsel," you washed that down with another glass of wine?" to which the witness answered, that he believed there was another glass. The evidence of Smith was confirmed by that of his wife, who stated, that she had received the money, and took it home to her husband. He marked the sovereigns with a file, and afterwards carried them to Mr. Francis Eden, who produced them before the committee. The committee was of opinion, from the evidence adduced, that Long, against whom the charge had been proved, was the agent of Mr. Manners Sutton. He would next come to the case of W. March. The case of March was different from the case of Smith in one respect only. March was a watchmaker, and a different mode of action was adopted. The agent went to March and purchased a brooch, but precisely the same mode of argument was used as had been used in the case of Smith. March was told that a poor man like himself had little to do with the election, that he had best look out for his own interest; he gave him wine, and he (Mr. Ward) supposed, deducting a per centage from the bribe on account of his cleverness in bribing, he gave March nine sovereigns instead often. March had a conversation with Cooper on the subject, and when Long accused him of having betrayed March, said, that he had no wish to injure Long, but that he hoped, that those who had employed him would be punished. If they really wished to put an end to this system of corruption, they should not merely prosecute the agents, but the persons from whom the corruption originated. It was sometimes difficult to trace the corruption up to its source, but in the present instance the links in the chain were more than usually complete; so complete, that they traced their agents as canvassing with Mr. Manners Sutton, and as in constant communication with Mr. Manners Sutton's known; and recognised agent, as ordering beer for the refreshment of Mr. Manners Sutton's voters, which were all paid for to the amount of 800 l., by Mr. Fiske, Mr. Manners Sutton's known and recognised agent.

1467
The House having laid down the broad line the other night, that it would proceed; against the parties in all cases of bribery, he thought it was bound to proceed in the; present case, where a primâ facie case of bribery had been made out, and the House if it wished really to put down bribery ought not to proceed merely against humble individuals like Mr. Webster, who was now declining into the vale of years, and who had no longer the energy of youth about him, but against individuals who, like Mr. Manners Sutton, had had the honour of a seat in that House. The parties who lodged three or four thousand pounds in the hands of their bankers, for the purpose of corrupting the electors, were the really guilty parties, and ought rather to be prosecuted than those who were detected in dealing out a fractional portion of that corruption to the electors. The House, therefore, having taken the line that it did the other night; he did not say whether it was a prudent line or not; were bound to follow up that course, and"e greater and higher the personages were against whom the prosecution was instituted, the greater would be the effect of the example, and the more effectually would they put an end to those practices to which they were desirous of putting an end. They would more effectually arrest the crime of bribery, than by merely proceeding against obscure individuals, such ail William Swan and Samuel Long; He might be told, that a person who had not committed bribery in his own person, but by; an agent, was not guilty of bribery. He said, that such a man was morally guilty; but he did not mean to risk his motion on such a question as that, and he had, therefore, in addition to the first resolution relative to the prosecution of Swan and Long, introduced a second resolution, for which he would certainly vote himself, whether largely supported or not and by which further proceedings Were directed to be taken against the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton, believing as he (Mr. Ward) did, that the links connecting Mr. Sutton with his agents, Swan and Long, were complete. He should therefore put his motion with confidence td the House, and leave it with hon. members to deal with it as they thought fit.
Sir C. Lemonsaid, as chairman of the committee on the Cambridge election, he thought it was important that the House
1468
should understand on what grounds the committee adopted their report. The committee first came to the conclusion that the agents of Mr. Manners Sutton had been guilty of bribery, it was suggested to them afterwards that they departed in some measure from the usual form adopted by, the House, and they then altered their resolutions to the form of the second resolution proposed by the hon. Gentleman. They thought that the question which they had to try was hot whether Mr. Manners Sutton, in his own person, had been guilty of bribery, but whether his agents had been guilty of it, and they came to the conclusion upon the evidence that they had been and Were connected with him. But he would remind the hon. Gentleman of the distinction drawn by the Chief Justice Abbott between this case and a prosecution in the Courts of Law. With respect to Mr. Long, the evidence was as clear as it possibly could be. He not only gave the bribe, but he explained to the party for what purpose it was given—namely with the view of influencing his Vote and there was not the smallest doubt that if Mr. Long had been prosecuted at that time conviction would have followed. The question, however, for the House td consider was, whether after this' matter had been allowed to rest for a year and a half, it would be proper to commence a prosecution. If hot vindictive the proceeding would at least be retaliation. After a twelvemonth had elapsed, it was too late to commence a prosecution, and if the motion, therefore, was persisted ill, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
The Earl of Darlingtonconcurred in the remarks which hid fallen from the hon. Baronet. It was needless to say that, whoever might be the individual concerned —whether of high or low station, whether friend or foe—in any act of delinquency he would give his verdict impartially. He was not present when his right hon. Friend brought forward his motion with respect to Dr. Webster, but he certainly was astonished when he found that a number of hon. Gentlemen who profess the greatest horror of bribery had done all in their power to shelter him. He believed a more flagrant case than that had never come before the House of Commons. He would now address himself to the subject before the House. Mr. Long had undoubtedly been guilty of bribery, but he

1469
ought to have been prosecuted at the time. With regard to Mr. Swan, there had been a good deal of discussion as to whether he could be proved to have been connected with Mr. Manners Sutton. So Far as his (Lord Darlington's) memory served him, there was no evidence to show that Mr. Swan had any personal communication whatever with Mr. Sutton. There was a good deal of difference of opinion upon the subject among the Members of the committee, and, for his part, he had voted that Mr. Swan's agency had not been proved; but the committee having come to a contrary decision, he afterwards voted that the case of bribery had been made Out. He would also add, that though Mr. Swan had been subpoenaed by the counsel for the prosecution, they never brought him, and for no other reason, as appeared to him (Lord Darlington) than that his evidence upon a cross-examination might militate against them. He would leave the House, after a statement of these facts, to judge for itself upon the case of Mr. Swan. He would next come to Mr. Manners Sutton, against whom he thought the hon. Gentleman opposite had not established one single charge. Let him be allowed to add, that so hard did the committee think the case of Mr. Manners Sutton that though he should not retain his seat, so guiltless did they consider him of any kind Of bribery, that fin the resolution they had passed in the first instance, they had omitted his name altogether. It was only in the second resolution they had come to after the objection of Mr. Austin to the first as illegal and unprecedented, that it had been decided that Mr. Manners Sutton had been guilty of bribery through his agents at the election. Mr. Sutton took no part in the election whatever. He was applied to by the Conservaties to stand for the borough, and he was required to pay 300 l towards the expenses of the election. It was the only pan Mr. Sutton took in the election, and he did not think a sufficient cage had been made out to warrant the House in giving its assent to the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. Protheroesaid, it had been distinctly proved before the committee that the agents of Mr. Sutton had contributed to a fund, the avowed object of which was the corruption arid bribery of the electors. He believed however, that, as far as Mr. Sutton was concerned individually, he
1470
stood as clear as any man could who represented one of those old and corrupt constituencies. It certainly appeared to him, that much more blame ought to be attributed to the electors than the candidates, for it was impossible to exercise any influence over the constituencies without falling into the corrupt practices that prevailed in these boroughs; and on those grounds he objected to the prosecution of Mr. Sutton, but he should certainly vote for the first resolution.
Mr. Thesigerwas of opinion, that it would neither be creditable nor desirable for the House to institute a prosecution with the certain prospect of defeat before it; nor was it at all consistent with the dignity of the House to institute such proceedings in a spirit of retaliation. What he would ask, had the present case to do with the case of Dr. Webster? Were the merits of the present case involved in that? Why not take each case and rest it on its own merits? He repeated, that it was neither expedient nor desirable, to institute the proposed proceedings; it was no light matter for that House to direct a prosecution, as in doing so, the individual about to take his trial would have a prejudice excited against him, inasmuch as it would be assumed that the House had good grounds for sending the case for trial, and the party would, therefore, labour under a prejudice from the commencement. The House should therefore, be careful how it proceeded. He would not refer to the case of St. Alban's. That case had nothing to do with the She then under consideration. It was Clear, from the evidence of the Chairman of the committee, which sat upon the Cambridge petition, that nothing was elicited which could implicate Mr. Manners Sutton, and the hon. Member for Halifax bore testimony to the same effect. Neither did there appear in the evidence anything which could implicate Swan. He regretted, that the hon. and learned Attorney-general was not present, as he should have wished to appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether in the administration of criminal justice arty person was held responsible for the conduct of his agent, unless that person were himself in some degree personally connected with the act. In Civil cases, the principal was responsible for the conduct of the agents but, with the exception already made, such was not the case in the administration of criminal

1471
justice. If he was right in this opinion, the consequence of a prosecution being directed by the House would be, that those who administered the criminal laws in our courts of justice, seeing not the slightest pretence for a prosecution, would direct an acquittal, and then the House would suffer in the eyes of the country for having, at the same time that several of its Members were members of the legal profession also, not only sanctioned, but directed a prosecution which it would be impossible to maintain. He would appeal, therefore, to the good sense of the House, and ask whether it would be right to institute a prosecution, when there was no evidence whatsoever to connect Mr. Manners Sutton with Swan, whilst at the same time no act of bribery could be proved against Swan. With respect to Long, he was not prepared to defend him. There was no doubt, that a case of personal bribery had been made out against Long, for which he was liable to a prosecution. The House, however, did not seem to be aware that a prosecution had already been commenced against Long. It was instituted in January, 1840, at the borough sessions of Cambridge. He was taken on a warrant issued by Professor Henslow, who was an ardent friend and partizan of Mr. Gibson, and who proposed that gentleman as a candidate. The case was heard in the first instance before four magistrates, who were also partizans of Mr. Gibson, and at certain portions of the evidence which appeared to make against Long, one of the magistrates expressed applause. Long was held to bail by those magistrates, himself in 500 l., and two sureties of 250 l. each, though he was only a poor harness-maker earning 3l. a-week. The case was moved by certiorari to the Court of Queen's Bench, and was ripe for trial, which was to come on at the spring assizes of 1840. The attornies for the prosecution, who were also the agents for the petitioners against Mr. Manners Sutton, came to town, and met Long by appointment at the Craven Hotel, or some hotel in Craven-street, where he was told, that the prosecution against him would be foregone if he would give evidence against Mr. Manners Sutton. This person made a statement that he was present at, he (Mr. Thesiger) thought, the Eagle, when one Mitchell, in the presence of Mr. Fisher, a leading Conservative in Cambridge, handed over to him forty sove-
1472
reigns, for the purposes of bribery. When, however, he came before the committee of the House of Commons, this man, on his oath, positively denied that that statement was true, and declared that he had only made it for the purpose of getting an abandonment of the prosecution. Certainly he (Mr. Thesiger) was not there to defend such a person as this, but he submitted that it was more likely that the truth should come out when the man was before the committee, than when be was making a statement to the opposing party. He wished to ask the Attorney-general whether he ever had known an instance in which an ex officio information against a party had been filed when an indictment for the same offence was already depending. He could not think, that the Attorney-general could be induced to enter upon such a prosecution, and for the reasons he had given, he trusted the House would negative all the resolutions.
The Attorney-Generalwas rather surprised, considering the situation in which he was placed, that his hon. and learned Friend should have appealed to him on this occasion. Having in the case of the St. Alban's election, which was before the House very recently, declined giving any opinion on its merits, it was his intention to pursue the same course on the present occasion. If he were to depart from that line, it was possible it might be quoted against him, before a jury, that he was prosecuting a case on which he had already delivered an opinion as a judge in the House of Commons.
Sir E. Sugdenwas of opinion, that there was no ground whatever for instituting a prosecution against Mr. Manners Sutton. That Gentleman's name was most reluctantly introduced into the report of the committee, it being the opinion of that committee, that Mr. Sutton was in no way proved to be cognizant of the acts of bribery alleged to have been committed in his name, and it was only on the representation of Mr. Austen, the petitioner's counsel, who stated that he feared the finding of the committee would be inoperative unless that gentleman's name was mentioned, that the committee introduced the name of Mr. Sutton at all. There was nothing to implicate that Gentleman, and if he should be indicted he must be acquitted: he would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member for Sheffield to withdraw the resolution against Mr. Sutton.
Mr. Wardsaid, that after the discussion which had taken place, he was perfectly willing to abandon the resolution against Mr. Manners Sutton, who, although he might be morally guilty, was not, he was inclined to think, after the opinions which had been expressed, legally guilty of bribery.
Lord J. Russellfelt himself relieved from the necessity of considering the question in respect to the charge against Mr. Manners Sutton by the course which the hon. Member for Sheffield had just taken. In the second resolution he (Lord John Russell) could not have concurred, because he did not see anything im the evidence which at all implicated Mr. Manners Sutton. With regard to the first resolution, he thought it desirable, that it should be divided into two resolutions, because it related to two different cases. With respect to Mr. Swan, he (Lord John Russell) should certainly require more evidence than he had yet obtained, before he could assent to a prosecution on the part of the House against him; but with respect to Long, it was admitted generally, by both sides of the House, as far as the opinion of the House was concerned, that he had been guilty personally of several acts of bribery, and that it was just such a case in which the House might properly interfere.
Mr. Williams Wynnwould be sorry to see the idea of instituting a prosecution for bribery entertained where the act was done by agency only, without any proof of knowledge on the part of the principal, because such a course would interfere with the conduct of election committees, and deter them from doing that with respect to the seat of the sitting Member which they could legally do, although there might be no ground for a prosecution. He therefore acquiesced in the withdrawal of the resolution as far as respected Mr. Manners Sutton.
Mr. T. Hobhousehoped, as it appeared that hon. Gentlemen on both sides were agreed as to the substance of the resolution, at least against Long, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, would put it into that technical shape which would make it agree with the wishes of the House.
Mr. Plumptrehad no objection to continue the prosecution against Long, but he did not think a case had been made out against Swan.
Mr. Wardsaid, that the finding of the committee was, that the agency of William Swan, jun., was proved, and that they considered Long to be the instrument of Swan, for the purpose of this election. Now, as the committee regarded Long to be the instrument of Swan, for the purpose of bribery, Swan certainly ought to be considered as one link in the chain of agency. He had no objection to divide the resolution into two parts, making the first a direction to the Attorney-general to proceed against Long, and the next a direction to the Attorney-general to proceed against Swan, but he could not withdraw the resolution against Swan, because he thought him to be one of the instruments in the work of bribery. Mr. Ward concluded by moving,
"That a committee of the House of Commons having reported, that the hon, Henry Thomas Manners Sutton was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the election for the borough of Cambridge. Mr. Attorney-general be directed to prosecute Samuel Long, a principal agent of the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton, for bribery."
Agreed to.
The hon. Member then moved,
"That a committee of the House of Commons having reported ' That the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating at the election for the borough of Cambridge,' Mr. Attorney-general be directed to prosecute William Swan, a principal agent of the hon. Henry Thomas Manners Sutton, for bribery."
The House divided: Ayes 78; Noes 46: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Hawes, B.

Armstrong, A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Heathcoat, J.

Baines, E.

Hector, C. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Hume, J.

Bernal, R.

Humphery, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Hutt, W.

Bridgeman, H.

Hutton, R.

Brodie, W. B.

Langdale, hon. C.

Brotherton, J.

Leader, J. T.

Busfeild, W.

Maule, hon. F.

Clay, W.

Morris, D.

Collier, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Collins, W.

Muskett, G. A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

O'Brien, C.

Currie, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dalmeny, Lord

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Duncombe, T.

Parker, J.

Evans, W.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Ferguson, Colonel

Pattison, J.

Goddard, A.

Pechell, Captain

1475

Phillpotts, J.

Strutt, E.

Power, J.

Style, Sir C.

Price, Sir R.

Surrey, Earl of

Protheroe, E.

Thorneley, T.

Pryse, P.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Ramsbottom, J.

Tuffnell, H.

Rice, E. R.

Turner, E.

Richards, R.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Rundle, J.

Wakley, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Walker, R.

Scholefield, J.

Wemyss, Captain

Seale, Sir J. H.

Williams, W.

Sheil, right hon. R.L.

Wood, G. W.

Smith, J. A.

Wood, B.

Smith, B.

Wyse, T.

Smith, R. V.

Yates, J. A.

Somers, J. P.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

TELLERS.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Ward, W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hobhouse, T.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Baring, rt, hon. F. T.

Mackenzie, T.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Blackstone, W, S.

Neeld, J.

Boiling, W.

Nicholl, J.

Buck, L. W.

Pakington, J. S.

Burr, H.

Parker, M.

Burrell, Sir C.

Pigot, R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Drummond, H. H.

Price, R.

Du Pre, G.

Pringle, A.

Eaton, R. J.

Rae, right hon. Sir W.

Fellowes, E.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Gladstone, J. N.

Russell, Lord J.

Grimsditch, T.

Sanderson, R.

Hale, R. B.

Seymour, Lord

Hayes, Sir E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Henniker, Lord

Thesiger, F.

Hodgson, R.

Thornhill, G.

Holmes, W.

Verner, Colonel

Ingestre, Viscount

Wood, Colonel T.

Jackson, Mr. Serjeant

Jones, J.

TELLERS.

Knight, H. G.

Darlington, Earl of

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Walsh, Sir J.

Resolution agreed to.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord John Russell(on the further consideration of the report on the Bribery at Elections Bill) observed, that as it had been supposed, that he had proceeded with the bill yesterday, after I he right hon. Member for Tamworth had retired from the House, he had taken pains to-day to ascertain whether the right hon. Baronet had any objection to the measure as it stood, and had good ground for believing that the right hon. Baronet approved of it in its present shape.
Bill to be engrossed.

DEBTS OF PARISHES.
On the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Debts of Parishes Bill in committee having been read,
Mr. B. Woodexpressed a hope, that the bill would be postponed till next Session. Parliament ought to be in possession of more information than it at present possessed on the subject, before it proceeded to legislate with reference to it, and there would be no difficulty in obtaining that information before the next Session. He (Mr. Wood) intended to move for a return of those debts, with a classification, which return would afford very valuable information to the House on the subject of the bill, and there would be no difficulty in obtaining the return in the recess.
Mr. Ricehoped, that the bill would be postponed till next Session.
Mr. Wakleyalso expressed his opinion that the House ought to have more information before they proceeded to legislate on the subject.
Mr. Plumptresaid, that in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Gentlemen opposite, he would not then press the bill.
Debate further adjourned.

REGISTRY OF ELECTORS.
Mr. T. Duncombemoved for leave to bring in a bill more effectually to enforce the printing, and the speedy delivery, at a reasonable price, of copies of the registry of electors in England and Wales; and to make provision for the printing of the registry of the present year of the electors of the county of Hertford.
The motion agreed to.
Adjourned.