SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT. (Hansard, 1 June 1842)

§ Mr. Redington
moved the second reading of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill.

§ Mr. Bagge
opposed the motion, contending that the proof of bribery against some of the electors was no ground for the disfranchisement of all.

§ Sir George Clerk
said, if they looked to the precedent which was followed in 1106 the cases of Carrickfergus and Stafford, they would see that it was necessary, before the second reading of a bill of this nature, to serve a copy of the bill on the returning officer.

§ Mr. Redington
said, if the House would agree to the second reading, he would not ask them to come to any decision until the returning officer had been served with a copy of the bill.

§ Colonel Rushbrooke
said, that he had this day presented a petition from certain of the inhabitants of Sudbury, who stated that they felt it extremely hard that they should be treated in the manner proposed, while other boroughs were equally guilty.

§ Mr. Blackstone
thought that Government ought to state their opinion on a question of such importance. East Retford, Shoreham, and other places had been rectified by adding to the borough certain agricultural parishes. Why should not the same course be adopted in the present case? He begged to move that the debate be adjourned to this day.

§ Viscount Sandon
said, that in his opinion they would never get quit of bribery so long as they hunted down boroughs and not individuals. He begged the House to consider well the consequences before they proceeded to disfranchise even so small a borough as Sudbury, because it was setting a precedent which might be extended to boroughs with a much larger population.

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
said, that he did not wish to oppose the motion made. He merely wished to state, that during the past week he had presented a petition signed by 120 electors of Sudbury by a magistrate and three dissenting ministers The petitioners stated that they highly approved of the resolution to which the committee had come, in reporting that gross bribery had been practised at the last election, and they also stated that bribery had existed for many previous years. He felt quite certain that the hon Member opposite could confirm that statement. The petitioners suggested that if the limits of the present constituency were greatly extended, and if the votes were taken by ballot, that this would be a sufficient protection against intimidation and bribery. He had thought it right to remind the House of this petition, and he had only further to state that he cordially concurred in the motion for the adjournment of the debate.