The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-25 00:00:00

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
believed that it was clearly understood that the report
on the Militia Bill was to be brought up on Thursday.
Of course the third reading could not take place until
after the holidays.
THE WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.
The CHANCELLOR of th., EXCHEQUER said it
was his intention to move the adjournment of the 'Luse
for the holidays on Friday next until the Thursday
following.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
A messenger from the Lords brought up the follow-
ing Bills, to which their Lordships have agreed:—
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
British Empire Mutual Life Assurance Company,
without- amendment.
Somersetshire Central Railway, with amendments.
Also, An Act to amend the Law relating to the cer-
tifying and registering Places of Religious Worship of
Protestant Dissenters.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP said he felt it his duty to
oppose the further progress of the Bill. He was
surprised to find the Government had taken up
and adopted such a measure as the present, which
was originated by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord
John Russell). It was a trap artfully invented by the
other side of the House, and he warned the
Government against the man-traps and spring-
guns which were placed in their way. The
Star Chamber was a farce to the tribunal which was to
be appointed under the Bill. There was to be a body
of commissioners, composed perhaps of briefless bar-
risters, who were to go to various parts of the country
and prey like vultures on the innocent and unwary.
Suoh attempts at legislation were unworthy of any
assembly, especially when a great portion of it consisted
of Members who called themselves Liberals. A more
inquisitorial, unchristian-like, and dangerous measure
he never saw. Instead of doing any good, it would lay
a trap for innocent men, and-encourage perjury. The
Hon. and Gallant Member moved that the Bill be read
a third time that day six months.
Mr. GEORGE HUDSON said he should vote
against the third reading;' believing that the Bill
proposed to deal with, the constituencies of England
in a most unfair manner. He was quite satisfied
it was not to the advantage of the country to pass such a
measure, and he hoped, when it reached the-House of
Lords,it, would be kicked out. Ho could not conceive a
greater insult to the constituencies of England than the
present Bill, because it assumed that ,most boroughs
were corrupt. Did corruption exist to such an extent
as to reqaire such a wholesale and sweeping remedy?
He believed not, and he therefore hoped the House would
not pass the Bill.
Alderman SIDNEY saw no reason whatever why the
constituencies of the country should be subject ,to the
injustice which was to be established by the Bill.
The effect of the measure would be to
encourage a set of persons who had neither money nor
character to lose to come before the commissioners for
the purpose of giying evidence against the purity of bo-
roughs. He was no advocate of corruption, but he should
oppose all Bills of this kind which were founded on such
an unnecessary asaumption, as to the existence of evils,
and which gave powers far exceeding any that had ever
been granted under similar circumstances.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the third reading ... 281
Against it ... 6 „,
Majority I
Colonel SIBTHORP then moved the following
clause:—"'J hat it shall be lawful to pay to every out-
voter residing within the prescribed distance of each city
or borough, or having any other right according to Act
of Parliament of voting for such city or borough, such
allowance in money, not exceeding 55., as may appear,
under existing circumstances, reasonable for travelling
or other incidental and necessary expenses as may have
been incurred, or to which he or they may have been
liable in carrying into effect the exercise of his or their
elective franchise on the day of polling at such election."
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. ANSTEY moved the insertion, at page 1, clause
1, line 9, after the word "that," of the words following,
"any judicial proceedings have been had in some court
of record of competent jurisdiction by which it hath
been ascertained or made to appear, or that."
Sir A. COCKBURN opposed the amendment.
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL, the
motion was negatived without a division.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, he could not see why this
Act should not extend to counties. He should move
certain words which would have the effect of remedying
that defect. He considered .that quite as much corrup-
tion was to be found in counties as in boroughs. Take,
for instance, the 501. tenants at will county voters. It
was well known they were thoroughly dependent on
their landlords, and as bribery was considered to be the
giving of some "valuable consideration "to influence a
vote, what could be more complete bribery than to pro-
mise a tenant at will the " valuable consideration " of
continuing him in the possession of his farm if ho gave
his vote according to the dictation of his landlord? Then,
with respect to treating, it was notorious that as much
treating took place at election time in counties as in
boroughs. He begged, therefore, to move the insertion
of words which would have the effect of bringing coun-
ties within the operation of the Act.
Colonel SIBTHORP hardly knew how the Hon.
Member could reconcile his present proposition with
the vote he had recently given on his (Colonel Sib-
thorp's) motion. As far as his own actions wore con-
cerned, he declared he had never controlled a tenant's
vote; and, believing tenants were an honest class of men,
he would not sanction any motion which tended to cast
a reflection on them.
Captain HARRIS was ready to support any well-con-
sidered measure for putting down bribery. He could
not discover any valid reason, if inquiry were to take
place, why counties should not be included. He believed
there was as much bribery in counties as in boroughs,
not from landlords intimidating their tenants, but from
such associations as the freehold land societies,
.the ob-
ject of which was to bring the holder, as farasvote
was concerned, into subjection to the committee his
of man-
agement. This and other matters ought to be looked
into. He believed that one side of the House was quite
as much to be charged with bribery as the other.
Mr. P. HOWARD would put down bribery by every
means.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said,
Eifnpgrloanted, ctioitnlvatos2dooLoahalyd
501. tenants was necessary in
fie should support the amend-
necessary in Ireland.
ment.
Mr. ANSTEY considered that the freehold laud so-
cieties had done much
good in the way of extending the
asserted
tenure
thatro
of placing their vote ,o
franchise, and it would b. e for the promoters of those
societies to say whether it was true, as
the members held their h.oldings. uncle? the
at the service of the society. He
error in the Hon. and Gallant
Member's remark.
hoped there was some
He thought it wasnot fair to go to
a division without first hearing the opinion of her Ma-
jesty's Ministers on the important question involved in
the amendment.
the Hon, and Learned Mem-
berwith stating that which was incor-
rect. Captain HARRIS said, ,
hin
was, that money was advanced to
had charged
What he_ said_
from freehold land societies, that
payment the vote of
persons holding land
while the money was in course of
the party was to be at the service of the society. That
eeenoninnfencrtmededw.ith a freehold land so-
ciety,calumny say . andlitr HUMS was
ain ques-
tion
interfered with the votes. oft .
y.
The whole object of theHsocie y was to extend the fran-
chise•—(Hear.) Thee futuorne. dand ay name the society which
Gallant Member, he
hoped, would at some
as he stated,because
.until that was done the calumny
did
applied to all land societies. He should b® glad to hear
against extending the Bill
what Government had to say
to counties.
juts BRIGHT would speak particularly with respect
to the freehold laud society in Birmingham and other
societies in Manchester, and would assert that nothin of
the sort as stated by the Hon. and Gallant Membergocs
cursed in those societies. He believed the Hon. and Gal.
lent Member knew nothing of the subject except what
he collected from the newspapers devoted to his own party.
There was a land society, to be sure, promoted by a-Con-.
Con-
servative party with which the Hon. Member for North
Warwickshire was connected, from whose doings the
Hon. and Gallant Member might have possibly obtained
his impressions.—(Hear.) He denied that bribery existed
in large borough constituencies, such as Manchester,
Liverpool, &c., or that any petitions had been presented
in consequence of alleged corrupt practices. So, if the
plea for exempting counties on account of the large con-
stituencies, was good, why then the Bill was improper
and unfair as far as large borough constituencies were
concerned. If one rule was to be applied to boroughs
and another to counties, it was tantamount to saying
that one rule of virtue was required for counties, and
another for boroughs.
Lord J. RUSSELL would expl sin why in this Bill
counties were not inserted in the first instance. There
were numerous cases of . bribery brought against
bo-
roughs, but none with respect to counties; so therefore
it was thought fit to apply the Bill to cases which had
been inquired into, but not to extend it beyond them.
There was this further reason why no distinction was
made in the Bill between large and small con-
stituencies—because it would be difficult in the Bill
to draw a line, and to decide what towns should
and what should not be :included. The rea-
son why counties were not included was simply
that which he had stated. He saw no objec-
tion—if complaints of bribery in counties arose—in
bringing them into this Bill; but he certainly objected
to insert such words at that moment, as the Hon.
Member had not given notice of them, nor had he pro-
posed their insertion in Committee. There were three
notices of amendments, but not a word
i about this one.
the e tquestion
the ]lon.
He considered the amendment was so important that it
ought not to be adopted without notice. Let L
Gentleman give duo notice, and
might be fairly discussed whether counties ought to
be included.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
remark, in reference to the anaeudinent of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, that, in any Bill for an inquiry
into the conduct of constituencies, to limit that inquiry
to a particular class of constituencies would be
ous.
His sincere belief, however, was that there was no ne-
cessity for extending inquiry to counties, as the county
constituencies were pure.—(Elear, and laughter.) He
did not believe bribery was practised' in counties—and
he was satisfied if his opinion were not founded on good
faith, they would have had complaints brought beto:e
them. He would further say, he believed corruption in
boroughs had been much( xaggerated—(Hear)—and that
bribery was mainly of confined to a limited class
bo-
roughs. He did not quarrel with the suggestion of the
Hon. Member. He thought the House ought, however,
not at present to adopt it, but to consider how, if adopted,
it would apply. Suppose the. House investigated a case
Of bribery at a country; qlectiou, and suppose, bribery
Ind
orruptipti were proved, bad they any MagbinerY