The Press.
London, England, 1854-02-11 00:00:00

BRIBERY, &C., AT ELECTIONS, AND THE TRIAL OF

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Lord J. *RUSSELL then moved. for leave to bring in
bills for the better prevention of bribery, treating,
and undue influence at elections for members of
Parliament, and for the trial of iontroverted elec-
tions, explaining that the earlier clauses of the first
bill would define the offences it was intended to pre-
vent, and provide that any person threatening vio-
lence or restraint, or in any way practising intimi-
dation, in order to ino uce persons to vote, or to abstain
from voting, should be deemed to have committed
the offence of intimidation, and be liable to a penalty
of 501. It was proposed also that persons found
guilty of bribery should be for ever disqualified from
sitting in Parliament. Another provision was, that
copies of all convictions for bribery and treating
should be entered in a book of parliamentary disqua-
. lification. Voters found guilty of bribery were to
have their names struck out of the register and to be
published in a yearly list as disqualified. The
second bill provided that, when a petition complain-
ing of bribery, treating, or intimidation at an elec-
tion was presented, there should be a preliminary
committee in the nature of a grand jury, consisting
of fifteen members, who should take evidence on the
part of the petitioners ; and if, in their opinion, there
Was a prima facie case made out, then there should
be a select committee appointed to try the petition.
In the event of the sitting member being unseated,
and it appearinr, that the unsuccessful candidate had
obtained two-thirds of the votes at the election, he
proposed that the committee should have the power
of declaring him duly elected. Should the commit-
tee report that bribery bad extensively prevailed, then
the Speaker was to report the fact to the Home
Secretary, and the Crown should be empowered to
issue a commission, and to name the commissioners,
who, he suggested, should be chosen from the re-
vising barristers. To obtain uniformity of decision
he proposed that assessors should be appointed, who
should be barristers of ten years' standing, one of
whom should act in each committee. The chairman's
panel he proposed to abolish, leaving the general
committee to choose the whole of the members cf the
committee to try the petition.
Mr. M. Onsois criticised the propositions of the
noble lord, expressing his doubts whether a constitu.
tionul principle VMS not infringed by the proposal
that the unsuccessful candidate at an election, if
obtaining two• thirds of the numbers polled by the
successful candidate, and the latter were unseated,
on petition, should, at the discretion of the com-
mittee, be declared elected.
Sir F. KELLY also doubted whether it would be
constitutional to empower an election committee to
return and declare as duly elected any one who,
under any circumstances, should be found to have
only a minority of the votes polled. Such a power
he thou3ht, would be dangerous in any tribunal.
To the measure, as a whole, however, he called upon
the house to give a calm and deliberate consideration.
The bills then underwent a scrutiny from Colonel
Sibthorp, Mr. Hume, Mr. Packe, Mr. H. Berke-
ley, Mr. Phinn, Mr. Phillimore, Mr. Ball, and
other hon. members. After which leave was given
to bring in the bills.
POOR LAWS.

Mr. BkINES then rose to move for leave to bring
in a bill to amend the laws relating to the settlement,
removal, and chargeability of the poor in England
and Wales, observing that the abuses and evils under
the present system had become so great that the
Government felt it incumbent on them to endeavour.
to grapple with them. Nothing could be worse than
the law as it at present stood, and the Government
felt that there was no alternative but to take away
Altogether the power of compulsory removal on the