The Express.
London, England, 1847-07-13 00:00:00

CLERGY OFFENCES BILL.

In answer to a question from LORD LYNDHUR6 T.
The Bishop of LONDON was understood to withdraw
his bill for the present session.
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION AT ELECTIONS.
Lord BROUGHAM said that on the subject to which he,
by his notice, had generally directed the attention
et the
house, he did not now for the first time address their lord-
ships; for at the close of the last general election, in 1841.
he had directed the attention of the house to it. He had
now, happily, • duty to perform more easy and
shorter than on that occasion, for on the question
of the enormity of the offence and its consequence
to the community and the independence of parliament there
could be but one opinion. But although it would require
but few words to support his resolutions, it was fit that
.h e
should preface what he had to lay by warning their lordab
that they shriuld not be deceived by what at first ae.peared
-- to be • very plausible topicaamely, that this quer',lo,l con_
oemed the other louse rather than their lord,hipa. ts,
entirely dissented from that opinion—he held quite en
opposite doctrine; and he was supported in at
me taining that
opinion by the highest authority. that of their '.oedabipalsotise
and its proceedings. For when the Bribery Act was passed
in 1829, it succeeded another bill which tliree years earlier,
in 1820, passed the other house, and. was rejected by
their lordships. This was one interfere ace of that house in
the question of bribery in the election of members of the
House of Commons. But a still more remarkable in-
stance occurred in 1729. The Bribery Act which was then
passed, and which was the law at the present day, was taken
into consideration by their lordships and freely canvassed,
and no objection was raised that it concerned the House of
Commons only, and that it win their business to deal with
the question of the parity of their members ; but, on the con-
trary, it was altered in thee lordships' house, and that
a two aseential particulars—namely, the raising of the
penalty from Al. to 5001.; and they added that most
valuable of all provisions that ever was made in seta relating
to elections, by which the last decision of an election com-
mittee estabWheil tie right of voting. The bill went back
to the Commons, and an objection was taken that the Lords
had exceeded their jariadiction and interfered with the elec-
tion of members ofthat house. To this Mr. Pulteney replied,
"that the Lords were the proper guardians, as well of thcie
common freedom as of parity of election, the most hither-
tent branch of the liberties and rights of Englishmen,
not only as a house of legislature co-ordinate with the
Connooss, but as the supreme court of judicature, and that
no one who regarded the liberty of the subject would grudge
to the Lards the making the provision, of that bill more com-
plete;" and the Lords amendments were agreed to. On
precedent, therefore, as well as on principle, Cher lordships
had an undoubted right to put down this one of the greatest
of crimes. When he said that the bribery and corruption of
lOW, was one of the greatest crimes, he did not speak the
of exaggeration, but he spoke advisedly. He must
reburnrtheir lordships of the extent to which the system
had proceeded. The Reform Act had at least one effect, it
enabled you at once to detect bribery and corruption.
Before that act the legal expenses of an election
contest were so large that it was impossible to say
whether a member or a candidate had been spending money
on lawful or on illegal purposes. The greatest evil, that of
bringing up out-voters, was put down. In the contest in
which -he (Lord Brougham) was engaged at Liverpool
with Mr. Canning, the expenses were 40,0001., and some out-
laws were brought from the Land's-end, and others from
Scotland. The expenses there were always 15,0001. on each
side (as we understood). Any one might admit that he had
spent 10,0001. in an election, and no one could prove
that it was not lawfully spent; but now if 1,8001
was spent it was known that it was unlawful, be-
cause 3001. or 4001. was the utmost lawful expense
since the Reform Bill. He could not remember the
scenes which occurred in 1841, and which so tarnished the
character of the people and of the legislature, without looking
to foreign countries. They had seen with sorrow charges
which had been lately made against men of the highest otfi-
cial station and character, which he (Lord Brougham) was
bound in justice to believe were groundless ; and he believed
that those eminent individuals would come free and un-
contaminated out of their trial. He was constantly receiving
letters from the other stele of the channel which contained
moot painful references to the subject of elections. Why were
we, said one of h eorresporiden ts. to set ourselves up as juriste,
to say with the Pharisee, '• Thank God, we are not u other
men are," and to held that things were doae in France of
which Englishmen were incapable Official corruption (they
go on to my), despicable and loathsome as it was, destructive
of the character of those against whom it was proved, and
almost destructive of the character of those against whom it
was charged, was the only charge ; and this greatest of all
political offences was the receiving a consideration for pro-
moting persons to offices, a charge in which some of our
etatminen were involved some time ago. When he (lord
Ifinagham) answered that, then came the point of the ug a•
meat,—that a man who receives a bribe may contaminate
himself and the government who employed bins; but in what
narrow limits was the injury done confined. But said cor-
respondents, look et bribery at elections, and the buying and
selling of men's consciences, and ask yourselves, as English-
men, who look down on us, if yon.can compare the few of-
fences of the nature alluded to with the wholesale baying
and selling of consciences by your legislators and deposita-
ries of mem, and that habitually. The arguments against
Ilisisswere so exuberant that he (Lord Brougham) du-
dish's& he ester on them, and he would have recourse to but
one of them. The man whir bribed to promote the interests
of his party would shudder and stand aghast, if he was tub
that he was encouraging perjury. Let every man on a
committee, end every candidate at an election and his sup-
porters, no longer lay the flattering unction to their souls
that they were only guilty of the political offence of bribery.
and not of encouraging perjury. lie (Lord Brougham)said,
that in every act of bribery they ran the risk of causing
moral perjury, and in many instances the actual crime was
committed. Of the 200 people in Hull, where the system of
heed-mono y prevailed, every one was exposed to the hazard
of hating the bribery-oath administered to him, and. he went
to the hustings knowing that -
that he has taken a bribe—and
take it ? not 6 per ant. ; not '
mode in which the oath -

and be bad eeea o nalonally
spectacles of this kind. He consider
been bribed, and was prepared
not been, as tworally gnilty
or a foot-pad would be of
to kill any person who re
character of a man for life,
innocent man, or incapable
bad exposed himself to the P

that the oath may be put, feeling
and how many would refuses to
of 10 out of the whole 200. .4.
was taken was moat ....._
,fessionally the A----- . - .
e considered the . —*mg', ''7:l . • ?f
repared to swear ". :II 04
N... .AI ~
.. -10
lilty of perjury 11,
•••• .4.. t 1. ....
of murder, who ,'1 _ • , . Ai
recognised him. ?I' .-1"*. wA
if., and he was ' I\l oto
ble of wilful perk . 'C. ' I'
P certainty of • •
• 4 4 • •