The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-26 00:00:00

THE CAPE.

Mr. ADDERLEY wished to r.sk the Secretary of
State for the CAonies it recent information from the
Cape of Good Hope represented General Cathcart's
policy to be that of driving the Gaikas over the liei upon
the tribes beyond, and occupying their vacated territory;
and if so, what prospects there may seem to be of any

remote termination of the war?
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that he had to state that
the last dispatch received from General Cathcart, which
was the first the General had forwarded since his arrival
at the seat of war, did announce to the Government
that he had made public in the colony his intention to
drive the Gaikas across the Kei, but the Government

did not regard that announcement as one which was in-
tended to be put in force. It was looked upon
as a threat which General Cathcart had thought
necessary for the purpose of bringing the war to
a speedy termination. In answer to the latter
part of his Hon. Friend's question, as to whether there
was any prospect of a termination of the war, he had
only to state that General Catheart's dispatch did give
hopes of such a result.
METROPOLITAN BURIALS BILL.

The House went into Committee on this Bill.

I❑ reply to Lord E BRING roN,
Lord J. MANNERS said it was the intention of the
Government to oppose any proviso to prevent closed
private burial-grounds being used for building purposes.
On clause 2,

Lord EBRINGTON moved the addition of a proviso
to the effect that no dwelling-houses, shops, or
ware-
houses should be erected on burial grounds in the
metropolis in which burials were discontinued by order
of the Treasury.
Lord R. GROSVENOR should be sorry to see closed
burial-grounds built on, but thought if the proviso
were agreed to the proprietors of the grounds ought to
receive compensation.
Lord DUDLEY STUART did not see how it was
possible to pass the proviso without giving compensation.
Sir B. HALL took the same view of the question.
Sir W. CLAY was glad the Noblo Lord had done him
the honour of taking up the proviso which he had origi-
nally proposed. He, however, admitted that the proviso
without a compensating clause would be a great hard-
ship to parties, and for that reason ho would suggest
that the Noble Lord should withdraw it.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH opposed, and Mr. B. COCII.
BANE supported the proviso.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the proviso ... ... 21
Against it _ ... 80

Majority
Clause 2 was then agreed to.
The other clauses were then agreed to, the House re,
sumod, and the Bill was read a third time.
GENERAL BOARD OF HEALTH (NO. 2) BILL,
The Bill was read a third time and passed.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the motion of Lord John Russell the Lords'
amendments to this Bill were read.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not say that the Bill
had been at all improved in its passage through the
other House. Tho first amendment was that an address
for inquiry should be agreed to by both Houses, instead
of proceeding from the House of Commons alone.
The effect of that amendment would be to
render two preliminary inquiries necessary be-
fore the effectual and real inquiry could be
reached.—(Hear, hear.) This he thought would be
an obstacle in the way of inquiry. Lord Lansdowne had
told him that he was taken by surprise when the amend-
ments were proposed in the House of Lords, but that
he did express his disapproval of them, considering, as he
(Lord John Russell) did, that they would diminish the
efficiency of the Bill. The other amendments were not
of so much importance. It was true the Lords had de-
cided that it should not be in the powor of the Commis-
sioners to make a retrospective inquriry in the
event of its not being proved that corrupt practices
existed at the election with respect to which the inquiry
was to be made. It would appear, at first sight, that if
an election took place by compromise all the corrupt
practices that had existed for a series of years
in the borough would pass without inquiry,
but that was not the effect of the Bill as
amended. At a general election, for instance, every per-
son in a borough might be bribed, but if another hap-
pened in a few weeks afterwards, at which none
were bribed, that would not prevent the House inquir-
ing into the corrupt practices at the general election.
He therefore did not think that amendment would be so
injurious. The next amendment was the omission of
the word " treating" as one of the offences to be in-
quired into. It should be recollected that this Bill was
intended to deal with bribery and corruption, and not treat-
ing; but still if there was a gross case of treating sufficient
to affect an election, the House had the power of proceed-
ing by way of a special Bill, as well as by an address.
He did not think it unreasonable that the House
should retain the power of proceeding by Bill
in special cases, for there could be no doubt that treating
in some instances might be as corrupt as bribery. On
the whole he considered that this Bill, even as ataended,
would be a considerable advantage in regard to
dealing with corrupt practices and bribery in boroughs.
Though lamenting the changes in the Bill, he should
propose to agree to them, believing that it was impro-
bable, if they rejected the amendments, they would bo
enabled to restore the Bill to its original state.
Sir A. COCKBURN intended to take the same course
as the Noble Lord, though he could not help thinking
that the amendments were most material ones, and
would seriously affect the operation of the Bill. Ho
was astonished at the introduction of these amendments,
inasmuch as the Government in that House had
given their cordial co-operation in passing the Bill in its
original state. This was another instance of what
he might term the duality of the Government, having
one leader in the House of Commons, and another
in the House of Lord. The Bill passed this House
without any important alteration, but when it got to the
Lords it was dealt with by the Government in a different
spirit, and great alterations introduced. He complained
of the second alteration, preventing retrospective inquiry
into corrupt practices at elections, observing that inn() in-
stance had Parliament disfranchised a borough for proceed-
ings which had taken place at one single election. It was
only when they were convinced of the long existence of an
inveterate system of corruption that they disfranchised.
He therefore thought that this amendment would frus-
trate the intentions of the Bill. He thought the altera-
tions most mischievous—that they entirely mutilated
and spoiled the Bill. The Bill as amended might be
some use, but it was very much limited. He thought that
in making these alterations in a valuable and effective
measure, for preventing corruption, the Government
incurred serious responsibility both in regard to the
House and publics.
Mr. WALPOLE was astonished at the last observation
of the Hon. and Learned Member. He attacked the
Government for making alterations in the Bill
which emanated from them neither in that or in
the other House of Parliament. He also at-
tacked the Government for having supported
one Bill in the House of Commons, and
another in the House of Lords. Was it his doctrine of
the Constitution that an independent Member in the
other House of Parliament had not the power of pro-
posing an amendment which he thought just, and
that the Governmeut had not the power of
agreeing to it if they thought it right? That was
exactly what had taken place in the House of Lords.
The first amendment was suggested by a Noble Lord,
not a member of the Government, and had been
adopted by the Government because they thought it just
and reasonable.—(Hear.) The constitutional doctrine
stated by the Learned Gentleman was quite novel.
He (Mr. Walpole) would even go a step further, and
say that even the constitutional doctrine stated by the
Noble Lord was not what he should have expected
from so high an authority, who was always ad-
vocating the rights of the House and the people
on questions of this kind, in order that no
undue influence should be exercised. The amendments
as proposed would in reality take away from the
Government an enormous power, which they
might have used for disfranchising boroughs
which were opposed to them. The majority
in that House generally supported the Government,
and and if the Bill had remained as it was, it would.
Choau
been in the power of the Government to appoi.n
ticular bo-
to institute inquiries with respect to any par Tory in-
missions independently of the House of Lords, in order
rough. It such a proposal had emanated
iforoo a
bey°
consti-
tutional would be the
stead of aWhig Government, the Oppoe.itw,ich might be
first to say that a power of this kind u
stied be given,
exercised in an arbitrary mannerh,i
the
Houses. He therefore begged t
F the greatest coostitutintti
unless the matter was thoroughly
tutional doctrine both of
also of his legal adviser.
voice in the question of ap-
a"mendtuent, it was nothing but
disfranchise a borough. In
With regard to the
authority in
first Lords should have, as well as
demury i oughta
Ye s ti tgo
right that the Houseons, a
that Houset,to
the House of Coma?
commission
ntmg Sudbury and St. Albans the L • egislature
the cases 0— •and the House of
proceeded by Lords was called upon
reject the disfranchisement,
confirm
or isement, and why
so
should they make an exception here, simply because
it was ;proposed to proceed by address? It was neither
unjust nor unconstitutional, end he therefore called upon
the House to agree to every one of the Lords' amend-
ments.--(Hear.)
Mr. DUNCOMBE said • •
the Prime Minister moved
the amendment as to the • • Joint address, and yet it was
UM stated ttitit it proceeded from (44 independent Peer.

... -59

Me. WALPOLE—Yes, Lord Redesdale proposed it.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—But the Prime Minister moved
it.
When he c Imo into office the Premier stated
that
not he approved of this Bill which did
then contain this amendment.—(Hear, hear.)
1 was very much afraid the amendment had been Ba-
troauced to defeat the:object of the rill, and to secure
the rotten boroughs of the Tories.—(Hear, bear.) The
other
o be e retrospective, amendment,
he w
that the billeras
equally in
opposedcertain
,
could no assume that all the constituencies of asis
country were devoid of corruption, and he therefore re-
gretted to find that the Noble Lord the Member for
the City of London was prepared to accept the
amendments.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The leading
principle of the Government was concession and
compromise, and he wanted to know why there could
shouldier
h
ne
not be some little concession and compromise hero,
for the sake of securing as much purity as possible at
the next election?—(Hear.) Ho would take that oppor-
tunity of pointing out an anomaly that existed
in their recent proceedings in reference to St. Albans.
St. Albans had been disfranchised, and yet there was an
Hon. Member occupying a seat in the House as the late
representative of St. Albans, but now representing no
constituency at all.—(Oh, and a laugh.) Now, why
could not some clause be introduced into this or the
Controverted Elections Act to remedy that strange state
of things?—(dear,)
Col SIB'THORP considered himself as good a man is
the House as any other, and he begged to state
that he had objected to this Bill all
through the piece.—(llear, hear.) He looked upon it
as a gross attack upon the liberties of the people, and as
nothing else but a cloak to hide the meanness of others
at the expense of the liberal and charitable; it
had in fact emanated from the, Whig-Radical
section of the House, who were continually going about
the country, like quack doctors, spreading poison in the
minds of the people, and attempting to make theta dis-
fitisfied with their state and condition.—(Hear, hear.)
He not only highly approved of the amendments, but
sincerely regretted that the other House, who had so
often stepped in to rescue the Crown and the laws from
destruction, had not thrown the Bill out altogether.
—(Hear, hear.) He could not stop the Bill, but he
could protest against its passing, as an unjust, uncon-
stitutional, mean, and uncharitable measure.—(Hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY would not resist the adoption of
the Lords' amendments, but nevertheless he must
be allowed to express his opinion that they would
render the Bill entirely inoperative.—(Hear, hear.)
The amendments, in fact, were a grievous encroach
ment upon the -rights and powers of the House of
Commons; and he was therefore surprised to find
the Noble Lord the Member for the city of
London adopting them almost_ without opposition.—
( Elear, hear.) He strongly objected to the amendment,
which struck out the clause relating to treating, and
called upon the House to restore it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME concurred with all that had fallen from
the Honourable Member who last addressed them. It
looked as if the Noble Lord the Member for the city of
London and the Government were not sincere in pro-
posing to redress the wrongs of the people. The time,
however, had come when they must not be frightened
at the word democrat, which meant nothing
more than government by the people, and he objected
to Honourable Gentlemen, who were the mere nomi-
nees of Peers, talking so slightly of the Liberal
party. The Peers were always found sup-
porcing abuses, and looking at the objectionable
amendments that they had introduced into this Bill, it
would have been much better had the Noble Lord the
Member for the city of London abandoned the Bill, rather
than succumb to the desire of the Peers to secure their
oligarchical system.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUDSON could not help expressing his satisfac-
tion at the improvements which the Lords had intro-
duced into the Bill. The Lords ought to have a
voice in this matter, for the sake of se-
curing the privilege of the Bill, and he for ono
agreed with that eminent personage who once said,
" Thank God, we have a House of Lords."—(
hear.) Either let the House of Lords be an active and
efficient part of the Legislature, or do away with it, and
as he, for one, entertained the former and not the latter
opinion, he was not sorry that these amendments had been
introduced into this highly objectionable Bill.—(Hear.)
Mr. BELL could appreciate the merits of the Bill,
having had some experience in corrupt practices. Too
much importance seemed to be attributed to th
amendments introduced by the Lords, for he was
convinced that only simple and uninformed parties who
fell into the hands of designing electioneering agTent.s
his
would come under its operation.—(A laugh.)
Bill would, however, never put an end to bribery,
for within the last few days he had had several
boroughs offered him at from 500/. to 3,000/.,
and he was satisfied that the House was not going the
right way to put an end to these corrupt practices.
Parties who were convicted of bribery ought to be dis-
graced, while every facility ought to be afforded for the de-
tection of the corrupters. The electors receiving the bribe
should be fined and disfranchised, and the party admi-
nistering or sanctioning the bribe disgraced in some man-
ner by the law.—(Hear, bear.)
Mr. STANFORD still believed this was a weak mea-
sure with all its amendments, and had little hesitation in
declaring his conviction that it would be found inopera-
tive.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. OSWALD said the amendments ought properly
to be considered in Committee, where they could be
discussed in detail. He objected to handing over the
privilege to the tender mercies of the House of Lords, and
charged the Government with having allowed the Bill
to be burked in the House of Lords for the sake of
securing the votes of those of their supporters who owed
their return to Parliament entirely to bribery and cor-
ruption.—(Hear, hear.) He should, therefore, take the
liberty of moving that the House do negative the Lords'
amendments.--(hear, hear.)
Sir DE LACY EVANS said the Bill had been so
disfigured that he was at a loss to recognise it as the
same Bill which went up from this House some short
time ago. 4 He considered the amendments were unjust
and uncalled for, so much so indeed that the Bill was
now little better than a sharn.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT thought the observations which had
been made would satisfy the House and the country
that the Opposition did not approve of the motion for
the adoption •of the Lords' amendments. There were
innumerable boroughs notoriously in a state of corrup-
tion, but the next election might be com-
promised so as to aviod a contact, and
then should any future case arise Parliament
would be precluded from inquiring into all the former
corruption.—(Hear, hear.) No good Bill ever had a
chance of passing the Lords unless there was some se-
vere pressure from without, and the amendments which
had been introduced into this Bill were simply for the pur-
pose of throwing obstacles in the way of a searching in-
quiry into the corrupt practices at elections. The elections
—at least some of them—of this country would be a dis-
grace to any nation, and he regretted that fur the sake of
morality the Lords had not allowed the Bill to pass in
all its integrity.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM allowed that his Noble
Friend, the Member for the city of London, had been
most successful in his exertions to check corrupt practices
at elections. His most brilliant successes were achieved
in opposition, and he hoped this Bill would be no excep-
tion to the rule. Still he admitted that the Bill had
been sadly mutilated, but the amendments were not of
that character as to entirely destroy the Bill. They
decidedly impaired it, but far from destroyed it, and
therefore ho urged the House to suffer it to be passed
into a law.—(Hear, hear.) He believed that,
practically, if an address were agreed to on a
prima facie case by this House, the House of
Lords would concur in the address. He felt that the
Bill would be extremely valuable in checking corrupt
practices at the elections for the future Parliament, and
if a division took place, he would vote in favour of the
amendments.
Mr. BROTHERTON concurred in the observations
made by the Right Hon. Baronet.. He had been too
long a Member not to know that it was better to accept
measures by instalments from the House of Lords. If
they went for everything at once they would not have
the remotest chance of attaining what they desired. He
thought that several of the Hon. Members of the House
had dealt somewhat unfairly with the Noble Lord (Lord
J. Russell).
The amendments of the Lords were then agreed to.
SESSIONAL AND STANDING ORDERS.
On the motion for considering the report of the Ses-
sional and Standing Orders Revision Committee,
Mr. W. PATTEN entered into an explanation of the
alterations proposed by the Committee. He also al-
luded to the conduct of private business, observing that
the country wap under the greatest obligations to the
many Hon. Members who had, during the session, made
considerable sacrifices in attending upon Committee
Both the House and the public were wholly unacquaintedd
with the great labour which these gentlemen
a ter toder-
the
gone. The Committee on the supply of
metropolis had sat no less than 49 days.
s M im or-
Mr. HUME thought that nothing wa
BeimOTO
than he
tent to the regular proceedings of t
considered that the
simplification of these orders. ll°
Patten)
was entitled to the
Hon. Member (Mr. W. Pat attention he had thanks of the House for the great
de-
voted to the subject.
Mr VirALPoren
After a few words from and Mr. AG'
ft reed to,
Ac-
LIONBY the report warand the sessional
orders passed recE Bleu
As OF MR. BURNS.
et
On the motion of Mr. HEADe 31 a return was agreed
to for further papers relative to the case of Mr. Burns,
latter from
namely, aMr. Nichol, of Singapore; a letter
from the Sultan of Borneo to Sir James Brooke, and
minutes of a conversation held with Psngerau Makota,
Secretary 1 u
made by Mr. Low, Governing Labuan.
TRANSMISSION OF PARLIAMENTARY RE-
PORTS TO LITER
The MASTER ARY SOCIETIES.
of the ROLLS called the attention of
the Government t
under certain to the
expediency of distributing gratis,
and rete regulations, a selection from the reports
-rns printed b ordery of the House of Commons,
amongst the literary institutions and mechanics' insti-
tutes throughout the United Kingdom. He said it
would L
e idle at this late period of the session to move
for a Committee of inquiry into the subject, but he felt
confident that his Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would not refuse the application. The
Papers to which he referred would be the means, if cir-
euleted, of diffusing most valuable information. Many
petitions had been presented from various societies upon
the subject, all tending to show how great would be the
benefit arising from the transmission of such papers
to the different scientific and mechanics' institutions.
Ho proposed to refer the subject to the Printing Cone'
mittee, who should decide upon the matter.
Mr. HUME observed, that although he was equally
desirous with his Hon. and Learned Friend of cottny.
niceties; information at as cheap a rate as possible, jot
of the papers to which reference had been snob'
could be purchased for the sum of one pinny, end
transmitted through the post for a mere trifle. It „;
open to any iLlatitUti9llto make application for any Pe-