The Express.
London, England, 1858-04-21 00:00:00

(Stamped ld. Additional.) CT WOPENCE.

r to amend the law for the registration of amity voters in
Scotland. Hie object was to improve the present expensive
sod troableeotne einem which existed in floothuid.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the act of Mg origi.
sally contained claims similar to the present bill, but they
wars withdrawn In accordance with the view then generally
impressed by the house. He most reserve to himself the right
ofca=ethe second reading of the bill.
eru agreed to.

GALWAY FREEMEN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. WALPOLE said that when this subject was last
before the house the learned member fur Sheffield and the
Louse generally had concurred in the view which had been
stated by his right bon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, that this was • bill which *Amid be dealt with by the
committee of the house in a judicial spirit. His right hon.
Mend pointed out that as the bill wee framed It was not
bred on principles of a judicial or of • strictly equitable
character, but, on the contrary, ft was derivative in
two points. In the first place, it included in ens
mess the innocent end the guilty, amongst the
former class including lOO freemen who were ad-
mitted since the corollen lamed. The other point in
which it was defective was this, that while it disfrascidead
the bribed, it did not diefreaceMe the briber. Now, his oh-
eci.s
t.w,as to call attention to this subject, In order that the
sitting to • judicial character, might me the difficul-
ties before it, and, seeing them, come to a just con-
clusion as to the course which it ought to pursue. The
Chancellor of the Itzahogoar had said, and justly, on
simeme ocoulowallol *Ulem so• ougoots tin bill we to.
equitable. (Hear, bear.) In order to meet this detect his
right hon. friend said that instructions should be moved on
going into committee, to the effect that the briber should be
included. (Hear, hear.) He also intimated that uponLviz
into committee it should be moved that the committee
to instructed to consider whether the disfranchisement

should take place in a Mahe, or should extend only to the
guilty. The first duty of the house was to put itself
right upon the facts before it. He did not think
it could do so unless the motion which he was
about to make were assented to. His motion was that an
instruction should be given to the committee tombs provi-
sion for the disfranchisement of those who were found guilty
of corrupt practices in order to purchase votes." The house
would bear in mind that without such an instruction, no
amendment having the effect in question could be made in
committee He believed that by this instruction the difficul-
ties surrounding this part of the case would be best got rid of.
Colonel FRENCH begged to move that the bill be com-
mitted that day six months.
Mr. CLIVE said that the speech of the right hon. gentle-
man (Mr. Walpole) proceeded entirely on the fallacy which
had ran through the entire discussion on this bill; that
fallacy was that they could not act if the result would be to
punish the innocent with the guilty. If they were to be de-
terred by these considerations, they had be.ter put the
Corrupt Practices Act into the fire at once. (A laugh.)
The right hon. gentleman had said that out of 550 freemen
160 had been bribed.

WALPVLELI was wrong ; it wu 250.
Mr. CLIVE said if the right hon. gentleman thought proper
to endeavour to include the briber, in the bill, he (Mr. Clive)
had no objection. He was of opinion that no other course
could be taken than by adopting the measure.
Lord LOVAINE supported the motion for going into
committee. objecting to the instruction.
. . .

Mr. DILICSY--"said thee if the instruction was
agreed to, the proceeding would be one of pains and
penalties spinet particular individuals, who were protected
by a votress guarantee of the legislature.
Mr. MAGUIRE declaimed against • bill which only
punished the poor victims of the rich briber.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD objected to the instruction as
involving pains and penalties. The house should accept the
bill as originally proposed. The freemen of Galway were
notoriously corrupt.
Lord PALMERSTON said be could not concur in the
proposition of the right hon. gentleman, end should support
the simple proposition of his hon. friend who had introduced
the bill. He thought it would be • very bad example, and:
r_ad.me • bad effect on the public mind, if the bill were to be
, and if no proceedings were to be taken in the mat-
;OM could not see the force of the argument that the dis-
franchisement of • class of freemen was a punishment
which was precluded by the indemnity. He thought the
indemnity could only be fairly and properly taken as securing
them against any punishment which could attach to them
bye legalprasecution. The motion of the right hon. gentle-
man w go directly to a violation of that indemnity, be-
came it proposed to inflict disfranchisement on individuals on
sooount of individual conduct—it went to individual selec-
tion in regard to their evidence, whereas the motion of his
hon. Mend could not fairly be construed into any violation
of the Indemnity. If by the promised indemnity the house
was precluded from taking proceedings against • borough in
which corruption had been proved, all inquiry would be per
useless. (Hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said the noble lord, in his anxiety to
= freemen
proposed to disfranchise the whole body of
although the men who gave bribes and were voters
of • different class might escape. The result would be to
confer political influence on the very men who had given
these bribes. (Hear.) On looking at the list it would be
found that 200 men had received bribes, and that the rest of ,
the 660, although strmgly tempted, had had the extraordi-
nary virtue to refuse bribes. (Laughter.) Although the set
might have been passed to enable the house to legislate
against a body of men in the masa, he did not see why, if the
house could disfranchise a whole body, it should be disabled
from disfranchising &portion of that body. The instruction
moved by his right hon. friend discriminated between the
innocent and the guilty ; and be regretted that amongst the
list of bribers two names were not to be found which ought
to bays been placed there, with respect to one of which he
perhaps might think it his duty to deal on another occasion.
Mr. ROEBUCK said there was an old proverb that what
is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. But the
noble lord desired to give to the different birds different
sauces. (Laughter.) In the one: case there wee the bribed,
the poor, the many, the unfortunate. These parties were to
be punished under the act ; but they were not
to be punished by name—only by wholeside ; and
therefore it wes no punishment. (Laughter.) On the other
hand there were a set of men who bribed these partite. The
noble lord's feeling of justice came over them, and he said,
" don't you recollect we have given them the promise of an
indemnity ?" The thing was as plain as the sun at noonday
when there was no cloud to be seen. The fact was that the
poor the many, and the unfortunate, were to be disfranchised
for the purpose of putting power into the hands dills bribers,
(Hear, hear.) That wee not only an injustice to the parties
concerned, but to the country itself. By a solemn act the
parties had received an indemnity not simply from punish•
men; but from disability. Every one of these acts was •
farce and an injustice. The proper way was to deal with the
whole question, to wait for the reform bill, and not under
pretence of purity to commit an act of signal injustice. If
the house should under the appearance of sanctity pursue
this course it would be a most thorough going sinner.
(" Hear," and laughter.)
After • few remarks from Mr. Cor.z.trts,
The hones divided on Mr. Watroms's motion :
Ayes
Ross l2l-31

On the motion that the Speaker leave the chair,
Colonel FRENCH said he should take the emu* of the
house on the motion of which ha had given notice, that the
house resolve Hall( into committee on the bill that day six
months.

—Cord 'PALMERSTON mid he voted against the instruc-
tion, but he could not go with his boo. and reliant friend in
this motion. He thought it would be e bed example not to
go ms with the bill.
The house then divided—
For going into committee 226
51-175

The hour then went into committee, and
Mr. CLIVE moved that the Chairman report program.
Mr. WALPOLE said it might be well to postpone the
proorinp is committee, on the understanding that no
obstacle &mid be thrown in the way of the future program
of the Mil.

Sir 6: GREY remarked that the house had decided no-
thing as to the general principle of the bill, and he suggested
that they should have notice of the motion to be made.
Mr. WALPOLE agreed with Sir G. Grey. The At-
torney-General for Ireland had examined the ease, and had
got schedules of bribers and bribed. He should like to go
through them. If the hon. gentleman would put the bill
for Friday night. he should then be able to say on what day
he could go on with it.
Mr. ROEBUCK mid he wished to ask the opinion of the
Speaker as to the course that he proposed to Wm. He
wanted to raise the question as to whether they wens to take
the evidence in the blue-book as sufficient, or whether
they were to have the witnesses examined at the bar of the
house. He wished to know whether it was proper for him to
make that motion to the house f_ .

Mr. HENLEY said he saw no reason why those who had
given bribes should not be placed in the urns category u the
unfortunate persons who had taken them.
After s conversation, the further proceeding on the bill was
fixed for Friday next.

SUPPLY REPORT.

On the bringing up of this report,
Sir T. BARING mid he wished to mike a statement with
reference to what had pawed on • Sinner evening. It had
been stated that in 1861 he had transferred the preparation
of the estimates for the dockyards hem the soceuntant-
general to the surveyor for theme,. It turned out, In reference
to the papers, that he wee not in the °Moe at the time: bat
he did not wish to throw blame on others. The order
re-
ferred to did not relate to the surveyor's department only,
bat a general order directing that what wee transferred from
the accountant-general should not be imposed only upon the
surveyor to the navy, but upon the other heads of depart-
ments. This arrangement wee made upon the direct recom-
mendation of Sir John Briggs.
Sir PAKINOTON said the right hon. baronet had
assailed him on a former occasion in a tone of which he had
just right to complain. Ile bad simply said that a vote
which he had to propose was capable of improvement, and he
might justly ayen without giving any offence to any of his

predaceason. He bad from the way la which the
right hon. baronet ref r to Mat be himself had made
the change, but now it tared oat that it had bass made by
Lord Auckland in 1848. The right hoe. baronets complaint
wag as unfounded ma it was weemged Ibr.
The report was then received.
The home adjourned at half-past one &cloak.