The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-03 00:00:00

TEE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 3, 1363.

56,090,000—0ne-fourth of the custom! revenue of the coun-
try, and being, in fact, a duty of 1,200 per cent. upon the
article upon which it was imposed ; and in order to ensure
the revenue beitg raised they were obliged to subject the
commodity to a very great number of complicated excise re-
strictions, and a number of delicate questions were raised.
It must also be borne in mitid that it was the wish of the
whole house to consider whether they should touch this
tobacco duty at all. There was no saying to what conse-
quences it might lead if they proceeded hastily and incon-
siderately to deal with one portion of this subject. In 1840
they had made some alterations in the tobacco duties, and
the result was that in two years afterwards they had to re-
trace their steps, and therefore they should be very careful
as to what they did on the present occasion. Then came
the question whether the motion now made was a mere dila-
tory motion and a waste of time ? He himself should vote
for the motion, because, though he thought that the mea-
sure was good in principle, still he was of opinion that it re-
quired so much consideration in point of detail, that they
ought to have authentic information to guide them in voting.
Now, would they waste time by proceeding by way of com-
mittee? There was a case in point which occurred last
year when the sugar duties were referred to a select com-
mittee ; and he apprehended that the questions which were
raised in reference to the sugar duties were at least as great
in importance and in complication as those raised by this
bill, and he found that that committee upon the sugar duties
occupied very little more than two months, and that they
presented a very good report. Now if they were to send
the present bill to a committee for discussion, and the com-
mittee were animated by a like spirit to that which ani-
mated the committee upon the sugar duties, they would
get through their work in very good time.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—That is
not the motion.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE.—His right hon. friend reminded
him that that was not the motion, and he entirely agreed
in so saying ; and he was going to add that he thought that
the motion of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets was
not the one best adapted to meet the circumstances of the
case ; and he himself should very much prefer to see that
bill;read a second time, and that then the Chancellor of the
Exchequer should agree to refer it to a select committee
in order that they might affirm the principles of the bill
and afterwards discuss its details. He quite felt with the
hon. and gallant member (Colonel Dunne) that they would
be utterly at sea it they were to discuss this question in a
committee of the whole house, in which most of the mem-
bers must necessarily know nothing of the details. He
himself had had communications with several persons
engaged in the tobacco business, and he had heard their
statements, but he did not know whether to take those
statements as correct or not, for he had not had an oppor-
tunity of sifting them, and he did not know that he could
do so in a committee of the whole house. If they dis-
cussed the matter in a committee of the whole house there
would be many members coming in on a division who
would vote with the government or with the hon. member
for the Tower Hamlets without having heard the discus-
sion, and it was quite impossible that they could satisfac-
torily dispose of a complicated matter of this kind in such a
way as that. As he had said his wish was that the govern-
ment should consent to send the bill to a select committee,
and if he should have an assurance that they would pursue
that course he should vote against the motion of the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets, but if he failed to get that
assurance he should feel obliged to vote for the motion of
the hon. member, because he thought it impossible to go
properly into this question without having that amount of
information which could only be got through the medium
of a committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said
he wished them to examine this matter for themselves, and
when they said they wished to examine it by means of a
committee he said, " I do not wish that, and you must ex-
amine it in my way." He (Sir S. Northcote) did not think
that this was quite fair. He differed to some extent from
the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, who seemed to be
taking a line which was not quite in accordance with the
received opinions of the majority of the house; and he was
quite prepared to admit in principle this was a good mea-
sure and a step in the right direction. It was plain that
the duty upon foreign cigars was almost prohibitory, and it
should be so altered to allow foreign cigars to come into
fair competition, but it was also clear that if they reduced
the duty too low they would injure the British manufac-
turer, and put the revenue itself in some jeopardy. They
had smuggling and adulteration to deal with, and whilst
they might reduce smuggling by lowering the duty, yet on
the other hand they might reduce the duty upon cigars so
low that they would throw great temptation in the way of
the English manufacturers to resort to adulteration. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer himself told them that it was
necessary to make a distinction between the manufactured
and the unmanufactured article; and what they wanted to
know was, whether they had got a sufficient amount of
difference or not, and that was clearly a question to be dis-
cussed in committee. Were the arrangements which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in reference to the
manufacture in bond satisfactory or not ? They were told
by the manufacturers that they were not satisfactory, and
they wanted to know how that was, and they ought to hear
what the manufacturers on one side and the Custom-house
officers upon the other said upon this. Then came the
question, would they give the cigar makers power to manu-
facture in bond? and that was ono of the questions upon
which he should like to hear the opinions of the manufac-
turers and of the Custom-house officers. When he had put
the question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was
answered that he would take the matter into consideration ;
but now, he said, without giving any reasons, that he
thought that it would not do. They ought to know what
his reasons were, and how far they would bear examination,
and he must himself confess that the only reason which he
had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer give was not a
satisfactory one. He said that he could not allow the manu-
facture in bond because such permission would only be ap-
plicable to large manufacturers ; that was to say, that it
would be an advantage which the larger manufacturers
should not have over the small ones ; but did he not put the
large manufacturers upon the same footing of disadvantage
with regard to the foreigner that he had refused to put the
small manufacturers upon in reference to the large manu-
facturers ? This seemed to lead to the conclusion that the
privileges given to the foreigner were too great, and they
wanted to know how this was. There was also another
point in reference to the systems of drawbacks. They were
giving drawbacks, but upon-such badly-arranged terms that
no manufactured articles were exported from this country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer now said that he was
going to give them a better drawback, under which they
could export, but it was confessed that the present draw-
back was ineffective for this purpose, and that the custom-
house officers and the Treasury had hitherto made a mis-
take, and possibly they might on this occasion too be mak-
ing a mistake. These were the grounds upon which he
thought that there should be a committee, and surely no-
thing could be worse than passing a measure of this kind,
seriously affecting a trading interest, and then having in a
short time to alter it again. As he said, if the Government
would consent to refer the bill to a select committee he
would vote for the second reading ; but if not, he must vote
for the motion of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr, CRAWFORD said it appeared to him that the mo-
tion of the hon. member seriously invaded those principles
of free trade upon which the commercial legislation of this
country had of late years been founded, Having given the
statement of the Chancellor of the Excherquer consideration,
and having communicated with some of his constituents, he
must say that he had come to the conclusion that there was
nothing in this particular article of tobacco which should
exempt it from the operation of those principles to which
he had referred. The correct principle was that every con-
sumer should have the article he consumed without any
fictitious enhancement of cost by duties except those which
were levied for revenue, The proposition of the Govern-
ment rested upon three points ; in the first place, they said
that the alteration which they proposed would be for the
au vantage of the revenue—that it would prevent smuggling
and that it would benefit the consumer, and he had come to
the conclusion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right
in his views as to what principles the house should be go-
vered by when dealing with this matter. They were not at
present in a position to say what the advantage to the reve-
nue would be. As to the next point, it was said that smug-
gling was not much carried on, but it was clear that the
consumption of tobacco had increased much more than the
revenue, and he could come to no other conclusion than
that smuggling was largely carried on. Now, as to the
consumer, he had a right to have his tobacco without any
increase of price, except that which was imposed for pur-
poses of revenue, and if they imposed a duty to protect the
home manufacturer, they would be introducing again that
system which had been so repeatedly protested against.
Considering the means they had of discussing the matter in
that house, he thought that there was no need to go through
the tedious operation of having a select committee. The
growth of tobacco in Ireland had been referred to. He
would remind the house that there was a committee upon
that subject in 1830, and that committee reported an im-
mense mass of valuable information, He might remind the
hon, and gallant member (Col. Dunne) that the permission
which existed for the growth of tobacco in Ireland for home
consumption was not taken advantage of from 1799 to
1824, though during the succeeding five years about 500
acres were brought under tobacco cultivation, but the
article produced was so inferior that a duty of is. Bd. as
against one of 3s. was not thought a sufficient protection.
The sum required to protect the Irish grower against the
English grower would be ls. Bd., and he asked the house
was it willing to grant a protective duty of that kind ? For
his part he should not be willing to throw over 99 of his
constituents who were consumers to promote the interest

of one man.
Sir E. GROGAN concurred in the proposition of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that they should inquire into
this subject by a committee, but he desired that it should
be a committee up stairs, and not one of the whole house.
There hon. gentlemen would come in only to the division,
and give their votes hurriedly and without a full knowledge
of the subject. The Government here proposed a large
reduction in the duty on an article of revenue, and desirous
as the representatives of the people were to reduce taxation,
they were now discussing this matter for the third night,
and this was simply because they considered the examina-
tion of the question by a committee would be of great profit
knot only to the house but to the Government, and he should,

therefore, support thA amendment unless the Government
consented to an inquiry.. They all knew that Ireland was
suffering from a want of labour, and this tobacco inannfac-

:tire was one of its most important industries, as hon. gEn-

tlemen well knew that Ireland was remarkable for its excel-
lent snuff. But there were other considerations. He had

always understood that objects of luxury were, as com-
pared with those of prime necessity, fit subjects for taxation,

and tobacco was certainly a luxury compared with many

other taxed articles. Moreo'er, the revenue from the to-
bacco duties was increasing. In 1860 it was £5,600,000; in

1862, £5,714,000—showing that the trade was growing.
The army and navy estimates were now before them, and
there was a reduction of £2,000,000, and they heard that

the revenue was in a very flourishing state; if they adopted
the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, and endan•
gered a portion of the revenue derived from tobacco, they
might prevent a reduction in articles of prime necessity,
such as sugar and tea, and the income-tax. For these rea-
sons he thought it desirable that they should hear the finan-
cial statement, and consider whether there were not other
duties which might be diminished with advantage before
giving up perhaps £2,000,000 of the tobacco revenue.
(Cheers,)

Mr. CHILDERS argued that this was not a mere matter
of detail as to the amount of duty. On the one hand, they
were told that the committee of 1841 had found that no
change was necessary, and that the tobacco trade was pro-
gressing satisfactorily. On the other hand, the Chancellor
of the Exchequer said that it did not progress as it should,
that smuggling was carried on largely, and that the trade
was generally in a most unsatisfactory and anomalous con-
dition. In the latter view he entirely concurred. The
trade was at present in a position different to that of every
other trade, and the time had come when it should no
longer remain an exception to the general rule. They had
now little or no import or export trade in tobacco, and the
home trade was not as flourishing as some hon, gentlemen
seemed to suppose. In England the consumption of tobacco
was 2 or 21 per cent. of the whole consumption, whilst in
other countries, where the people had the same tastes and
habits, it was as much as 11 or 12, and in some cases 14
per cent , clearly showing the effect of the existing law.
As to whether 9s. was a proper amount of duty the evidence
was most conflicting, but many of the manufacturers even
admitted that it was too high. According to the evidence
taken by the tobacco duties committee the proper amount of
duty to be imposed on cigars would be 4s. 6d. to ss. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated good reasons for
adopting the principle of the bill, and he thought the de-
tails of the figure should be left to gentlemen sitting onthe
Treasury benches. He cordially supported the second
reading of the bill.
Mr. HORSFALL said the question was one not con-
nected with the subject of free trade. The question was
whether the house was to proceed at once to legislate on
this subject of the tobacco duties, or whether legislation
should take place after the whole subject had been tho-
roughly investigated in committee. (Hear, hear.) Why
did the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose this alters•
tion of the tobacco duties before bringing his financial
statement before the house ? It might be said that there
were precedents for the course which had been taken by
the right hon. gentleman. But there were bad precedents
as well as good ones—(hear, hear)—and he thought the
present course was a following of a bad precedent. He
(Mr. Horsfall) was ready to vote tor the amendment of the
hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets if the
house came to a division, but he trusted that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer would render a division unnecessary by
consenting to take the second reading on the understand-
ing that the bill should afterwards be referred to a select
committee. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. CARDWELL hoped the house would not, by vot-
ing the amendment, let it go forth to the world that they
wished the assistance of a select committee in order to de-
termine whether it were desirable to alter the duties on to•
bacco. The principle of the bill was to apply to tobacco
the same free trade principles which had already been ap-
plied to almost every other article of food and luxury form-
ing the subject of either customs or excise duties. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to accomplish by this
measure three objects—increase of revenue, cheapening the
article, and reduction of smuggling. The opposition to the
measure, he was much afraid, was the opposition of the
monopolists. (Hear, hear.) But all monopolies were ad-
verse to the interests of the consumers of the articles with
regard to which the monopoly misted. As to the pecu-
liarity which it was alleged attached to tobacco, why there
was not a single article in the list of commodities affected
by the free trade principles which had been carried out
since 1843 which had not also its own peculiarity. (Hear,
hear.) " Bravo men existed before Agamemnon ;" but
he never before knew an instance like that afforded by
the hon. and learned member for the Tower Hamlets of a
reformer meeting a measure of reform by a proposal to
refer it, in favour of the monopolists, to a select com-
mittee. He entreated the house not to adopt the evasive
and retrograde proceeding involved in the amendment. He
begged them, on the contrary, to consent to the bill being
read a second time, and then his right hon. friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would bring forward the fiscal de-
tails and fully justify all the alterations which he proposed
to adopt.

Sir H. CAIRNS said the proposal of the hon. member
for Stamford was, not that the bill should be read a second
time and be referred at some future day to a select committee,

but that the Government should consent to the second read-
ing, with the understanding that there should be a reference
to a select committee, of course, at once; and this proposal
had not been answered. As to peculiarities of different
articles, he would mention this peculiarity with regard to
tobacco, which attached, he believed, to no other article—
that the home manufacturers were willing to pay duty on
the raw material, and manufacture under excise regulations,
if allowed the same terms as to manufacture and drawback
export as were enjoyed by the foreigners. Therefore, hero
was no question of the infringement of the principles of free
trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that he
could not ask that the manufacturer in. bond should pay the
same duty as the foreigner paid at the Custom House. The
right hon. gentleman admitted that there must be a diffe-
rence, and the whole question was, how was the proper
amount of that difference to be ascertained ? There was a
difference in the statements put forward with respect to the

quantity of stalks which was required to make snuff, and
that was a point which might be advantageously referred to
a select committee for the purpose of ascertaining the real
facts of the case. Then, again, it was alleged that the native
manufacturers of roll tobacco; which was largely consumed
in Ireland, would be subjected to a restraint which would
not be imposed on the foreign manufacturer ; and that surely
would not be a fair application of the principle of free trade.
In the inland towns of Ireland tobacco was very exten-
sively manufactured, and he wanted to know whether the
manufacturers in that case were to transact their business

in the nearest seaport, or whether bonding warehouses were
to be established in these towns. In the former case an ad-
ditional expense would be imposed on the manufacturer, and
in the latter case an additional charge would be incurred by
the public exchequer, and the net receipts from the duty
would be proportionately diminished. He admitted that the
high duty which had hitherto been imposed on foreign to
bacco was inconsistent with the general tone of our modern
legislation; but that was no reason why they should not
carefully strike the balance between the native manufacturer
and the foreign manufacturer; and that would be hereafter
a very fitting subject for the consideration of a select com-
mittee, as suggested by his right hon, friend the member
for Stamford.
Mr. BUTT said that the amendment they had then to
consider was whether they should appoint a select commit-
tee for the purpose of inquiring into the expediency of alter-
ing the present tobacco duties. Now, that was a proposal
which was, in reality, equivalent to a rejection of the motion
for the second reading of the bill. He believed that a com-
mittee of the whole house would afford them the best oppor-
tunity of considering the details of the measure ; while, on
the other hand, no practical advantage could be gained by
the inquiry proposed by the hon. member for the Tower

Hamlets. He felt convinced that it was not advisable they
should continue in that case to impose a prohibitory duty,
and he should therefore vote for the second reading of the
bill,

Mr. NEWDEGATE felt beund to support the proposal
of the hen. member for the Tower Hamlets, who asked that
the case of his constituents, in as far as they would be effected
by the bill, should be made the subject of a special inquiry.
Let the house consider the position in which they stood.
The whole of those £6,000,000 of revenue were based on a
prohibition—a prohibition to gruw tobacco in this country;
and yet while they maintained the prohibition they went
on talking about protection or the abolition of protec-
tion. He believed that the prohibition was neces-
sary for the purposes of the revenue; but it was
still a prohibition, and any question of protection
that could arise in the consideration of that bill was com-
paratively a matter of utter insignificance. He did notlike
prohibition. Commercially and economically it was as ab-
surd as unrestricted competition. He had risen, however,
mainly for the purpose of protesting against the perpetual
reiteration of the praises of a system of free imports which
were thrust on the house in season and out of season. That
was a mere waste of the time of the house. It reminded him
of the crowd which shouted—" Great is Diana of the Ephe-
sians." The question was whether the house would con-
sent to alter the tobacco duties without more information
than that which they at present possessed. They had high
commercial authorities deprecating that course, and stating
that the interests of certain manufacturers were involved in
the matter; and under these circumstances he should cer-
teinly support the amendment of the hon. member for the
Tower Hamlets.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
what he proposed to do was this. If the bill wore then read
a second time he should fix the committee for Thursday or
Friday next, not with a view of challenging a general dis-
cussion in committee on that day, but for the purpose of in-
troducing into the measure such corrections, or rather ad-
ditions, as he might think would tend most to the benefit
of the trade. The bill would then be printed as a whole ;
and after an opportunity had thus been afforded for its con-
sideration he would in the course of another week or ten
days propose that they should go into committee, when he
would be prepared to give the best consideration in his
power to any further amendments that might be suggested
in its provisions.
II Mr. 41.YRTON said that after that statement of the

Chancellor of the Exchequer he would wait to see the bill
in its altered form, and would not press the amendment.
The amendment was accordingly withdrawn, and the bill
was read a second time.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the motion to go into committee on this bill,
Mr. LYGON expressed his disapproval of the principle
of the measure. He held that the question whether or not

bribery had been committed should not in the first instance
be tried by a Parliamentary Committee. He thought that
the law would never be in a satisfactory state until the con-

viction for bribery before the ordinary criminal tribunals
was made a condition precedent to the institution of pro-

ceeeings in the house for the purpose of obtaining a seat.
The law should define clearly what was bribery, the offence

should be referred for inquiry to the ordinary tribunals,
and there should not attach to it a punishment out of all
proportion to the sense entertained of it by the community,
In his opinion clause 8 was a departure from the wise and
just principle of law, that no one should be compelled
to criminate himself. By that clause the witness be-
fore a committee or a commission was bound to an-
swer every question, and it was left to the discretion of
the committee or commission to give a certificate of in-
demnity. If witnesses were to be compelled to answer
questions which might tend to criminate themselves,
there ought to be no option, and the certificate ought
to be given as a matter of course. With regard to the form
of the certificate he would suggest that it ought not to be
that the witness had made a true disclosure of all things
upon which he had been examined, because it was impos-
sible for any tribunal to pronounce that certain answers
were true, but that the witness had answered fully the ques-
tions which had been put to him. There would be no satis-
factory legislation on the subject of corrupt practices until
the distinction was drawn between bribery as an offence
against the law, and bribery as a means of obtaining a seat.
There should be due legal proof of the commission of the
offence before any action was taken upon it in the House.
He trusted that either the bill would be very much, amended
in committee, or that on a future occasion the whole subject
would undergo full revision.
Sir G. GREY said the points adverted to would be very
proper points for the consideration of the house in com-
mittee.

The motion was agreed to, and tho house went into corn,
mittee on the bill.

Clause 1 was agreed to.
Upon clause 2,
Mr. COLLINS moved the substitution of •g such " fur

other" before the word " capacity," so as not to disqualify

from voting persons employed incidentally in an election—
as, for instance, the publisher of a newspaper in which the
advertisement of a candidate appeared.
The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. PULLER said the object of the clause was to dis-
qualify persons who were employed as agents, canvassers,
poll-clerks, and messengers. He proposed to add to the list
persons of whom committee-rooms were hired, and also per-
sons who were paid for furnishing meat, drink, or entertain•
ment on the order of any candidate, or any agent of any
candidate, for the purpose of influencing any person to vote
for such candidate.

Sir M. FARQUHAR said the bill was fast becoming a
bill for the wholesale disfranchisement of electors, (Hear,
hear.) The existing law made it an offence to furnish meat,
drink, and entertainment for the purpose of influencing any
person to vote for a particular candidate, and he was at a
loss to understand why a man was to be disqualified for
letting a committee-room to a candidate for a small consi-

deration, (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL thought it might be possible to obtain a
legal definition of a " committee-room," but what was to be
said of a room used as a committee-room, "or otherwise for
promoting the election of any candidate ?" There was no
end of the ways in which a room might be used for promot-
ing the election of a candidate. A letter might be written,
an address be drawn up, a speech might be composed in a
room, and each of those acts might be said to be an act for
promoting the election of a candidate ; but was the owner
to be deprived of his vote for allowing his room to be so

used ? He came to the next part of the amendment, which
was perfectly bewildering. It provided that if A gave drink
to B, in order to induce C to vote for B. then A was to be
disfranchised. (Laughter.) Why was A. to be disfranchised
for a process which ended such a long way off ? He thought
such a complicated machinery could not be made to work,
and that under the shelter of such provisions a great deal
of real bribery and corruption might be practised with im-
punity.
Sir G. GREY was afraid that it would be impossible to
give effect to such minute regulations as those proposed by
this amendment. Its words would seem to imply to the
keeper of the hotel where any candidate might be staying,
and where he might see his friends or talk over the arrange-
ments of the election. The result would probably be that
the candidate would go to a hotel kept by a warm partisan
of his opponent and thereby cause him to be disqualified.
(Laughter.) The other part of the amendment relating to
treating would be hardly more practicable.
Mr. LYGON pointed out the harsh operation of the
amendment upon butchers and bakers.
Mr. PULLER did not contend that in all cases contem-
plated by the amendment the publican necessarily did
anything corrupt, but that on the whole, to preserve the
purity of elections, it was essential to watch jealously all
pecuniary arrangements between candidates and voters,
When a candidate went to canvass a publican, in nine cases
out of ten the publican said, " I have not made up my
mind; I don't think I shall make it up till the la t day."
They all knew pretty well that this meant that if the can-
didate would open his house he would vote for him, or if he
would not open it he would vote for the man who would.
Nobedy had suggested any better remedy for this than by
making it not the interest of the candidate to employ his
money in that manner.

Captain JERVIS said the unfortunate borough which he
represented (Harwich), having no supply of water, had in
consequence an unusual number of publicans—(laughter)—
and if this proposal were agreed to a very great number of
his constituents would be disfranchised. If voters were to
be prevented from acting as poll clerks, messengers, and
the like, they would get their friends and relatives employ-
ment in these capacities, so that the object of the amend-
ment would be frustrated.
The amendment was then negatived.

Mr. PAGET proposed the insertion of words making it a
misdemeanour for a person who had been hired by a candi-
date as an agent, clerk, messenger, door-keeper, &c., to re-
cord his vote at the election.

Sir G. GREY said the select committee had certainly re-
commended that this should be made a misdemeanour, but
on consideration he had thought it better to declare that tho
vote should be void.
Mr. GRIFFITH supported the amendment.
Mr. COLLINS thought it would be sufficient to impose
a penalty of £5 or so upon such persons.
Mr. Alderman SIDNEY asked whether the persons pre-
vented from voting would be capable of enforcing their pe-
cuniary claims against the candidates.
Sir G. GREY said that under the clause as it stood at
present the person hired would be entitled to claim remune-
ration, but would be deprived of his vote. If the amend-
ment were adopted, which made the offence a misdemeanour,
of course he would not be entitled to claim remuneration.
Mr. GRIFFITH supported the amendment, which he
thought would make the clause more efficient.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. CAVE then moved the omission of the clause. He
fully admitted the magnitude of the:abuses against which it
was levelled, and when we heard of 25 solicitors employed
on each side in a small borough, and changing sides with
their retainers, it ought not to be doubted that such a state
of things ought, if possible, to be put an end to. The ques-
tion was whether this enactment would have the desired
effect. He very much doubted it. Why were these solici-
tors paid ? Was it for their own votes or those they could
command ? By striking off their own votes would their in-
fluence be destroyed ? If a man could bring 50 votes would
he be much less valuable with 49 ? Besides, by the present
law the procuring of votes for a fee was bribery as much as
voting for a fee, so that no new enactment was required. He
admitted that the influence of solicitors over voters might be
most oppressive, but it would not prevent it to deprive the
agent of his vote or obliging him to act gratuitously. Was
employing a solicitor or other agent in itself bribery, or was
it not ? If it were prohibit it, and make it fatal to the seat,
If it were not bribery, but merely liable to abuse and extra-
vagance,adopt the Irish Acts, the 35tla of George 111., cap.
4, and the Ist and 2d of George IV., cap. 58, and fix the
number and fees (as in the case of polling-clerks). (Hear,
hear.) This was recommended to the committee as work-
ing well in Ireland. If this were objected to, leave the law
as at present, with the votes liable to be struck off on seru.
tiny, and let the election committee determine whether the
number was too great or fees too abundant. This was done
in the Oxford case, when an undue number of messengers
inquire
whether Mr. Neate. Especially let committees
whether agents had been in the habit of changing sides.
His own experience was that agents were chosen, like
bishops and judges, not to buy their support, but in conse-
quence of their declared opinions. He had not heard of re-
spectable solicitors accepting retainers from the opposite
side, and it seemed hard to cast upon them the slur of dis-
franchisement and stigma of bribery and corruption,
(Hear.) The result would probably be to throw candidates
into worse hands. Unscrupulous people would easily evade
the law by payment of relations, as widows were put into
poet-offices to gain their sons' votes. An attempt had been
made to prevent this by the sth and 6th of Victoria, cap.
102, but the law could never be carried out. Again, the
fee to solicitors for lookirg after the registration might be
increased, on the tacit understanding that they should act
as election agents gratuitously. If it were wished to save
the candidate's purse let him not be saddled with charges
which ought to be borne by the public. In other respects,
no ono could protect the candidate but the candidate him-
self. There was no doubt he ought to pay nothing, and
when in former days there was as much disinclination tobe
member for a county as there was now to be sheriff of a
county, this was so. Things were much changed now, and
when we heard of £6OO a year paid by a distinguished
statesman for a borough in the West, we could hardly won-
der at theidea prevalent among the poorer classes of voters,
that Parliament was a lucrative appointment to some of the
crumbs of which they were entitled. (Hear, hear.) Legis-
lation on this subject had been spasmodic, but not success-
ful. When the legislators themselves onspired to make
legislation abortive the case was well-nigh hopeless, The