The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-21 00:00:00

i hould move the amendment on the bringing up of the cases which required special legislation, what course was gave that answer was,`that he believed the question put
so
report of the committee, to be pursued ? They had not here simple and easy a was one of an offensive kind. (Hear, and No, no !)
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION.
case to deal with as that of Sudbury or St. Albans. The Mr. WHITESIDE would only say that, in common
case of Sudbury or St. Albans was one in which, though with several of his friends around him who were in the
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in rising to move for the whole constituency was not corrupt, the corruption same predicament with himself, he wished to know how
the purpose of asking leave to introduce a bill for the pre- was soextensive that if the corrupt portion had been taken far the Attorney-General went back with his bills. He
vention of bribery at the election of members to serve in away there would. not have remained a sufficient number had therefore tried the Attorney-General, but had been
Parliament for the city of Canterbury, stated that he in- of voters to exercise the right of returning a member ; and unsuccessful with him. According to the principle on
nse uently in those cases Parliament did not hesitate to I which he went, it might be inconsistent with official dig-
tended to follow up that motion with similar motions in consequently
the whole body. If, however, the thousand I nity to reply, but he had nevertheless a right to know
respect of the boroughs of Cambridge, Barnstaple, King- corrupt voters of Hull were disfranchised, there would how far it was intended to carry legislation in a wrong di-
ston-upon-Hull, and Malden. There was a manifest neces- still remain three or four thousand who were not corrupt ; rection. He would ask the house if it was correct, when
site for the measure which he was now asking leave to a similar remark would apply to Canterbury and Cam- they could not obtain in a town or borough independent
introduce, but it would perhaps save time and trouble if bridge ; and even in the case of smaller boroughs, if they evidence to proceed with this kind of legislation ? He
took away the corrupt part of the constituency, there I thought it a right thing to put down corruption, but it was
he at once called the attention of the house to the whole would still remain a considerable number who were not lof more importance still, in his opinion, to adhere to a min-
subject as connected with these boroughs as a whole, in- tainted with bribery. It would, he thought, be highly ciple which would be more satisfactory to themselves, and
stead of going in detail into each particular case. (Hear, inexpedient to disfranchise such places as Hull, Cambridge which would prove of more advantage to the country.
hear.) The reports which had been made by the commis-
and Canterbury. He could not, indeed, allow any con- The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted these conflicts
stoners appointed under the 15th and 16th of Victoria to
sideration of justice to intervene. The question was not of legal opinion in the house, which tended very much to
one of justice. or injustice ; if it were, they would not diminish the confidence of the public in the sincerity of
investigate the subject of bribery and corruption in these have been justified in sacrificing the innocent portion lawyers, and he hoped the house would endeavour not to
boroughs had now been some time in the hands of hon. of the electors of St. Albans. (Hear, hear.) The decide, as an hon. member had observed, on a legal quibble,
members, and he doubted not most hon. members were only way to look at the matter was this :—it is consistent but if possible to make out the true meaning of the statute
well conversant with the contents of these re ports. It was with the commonweal—is it consistent with the national as far as the wisdom of the house could determine it. The
good as regards the representation that particular consti- act was intended to suppress bribery and corruption, and
not necessary, therefore, for him to advert to them in de- tuencies should exist ? (Hear, bear.) If, however, they at the same time to furnish them with the materials of In-
tail, and he should do no more than merely call the atten- were not justified, on grounds of general expediency, in ture legislation. It was an act to enable them to legislate
tion of the house to those parts which had a local bearing disfranchising such places as hehad referred to, what were about that which the law had distinguished from private
upon the matter under consideration. He first, then, took they to do ? Were they to leave such places, as they had property, of which a man was absolute owner, and with
the case of the city of Canterbury. It appeared from been, a reproach and a disgrace to the country? Ho which he was entitled to do what he willed. It was an act
the report of the commissioners that in that city there thought they could deal with those cases in a very simple that legislated about the conduct of persons in the exercise
was a population of 19,000 and a constituency of 1,583 manner, and that by removing the corrupt portion, and of a great public trust—(hear, hear)—and those gentlemen
persons of whom 637 were householders, and 946 were free- leaving the sound residue, taking away the shattered limb who desired to adhere to the rules that should govern
men. he commissioners reported that corrupt practices in order that the body might be sound. If they did any- a deliberative body would do well to emancipate them-
stated at the last election and at previous elections. They thing, that, as it seemed to him, was the simple, plain, and selves from all considerations of a legal quibble, and
stated that a system had prevailed in the borough of brib-
ing and corrupting electors by issuing colour tickets ;in obvious course to pursue. There was, fortunately, no endeavour to determine the distinctioa that existed
difficulty as to the parties who had been guilty of corrup- between the use made of private property, for which
addition, they reported that direct bribery on a large scale tion in the boroughs to which he had referred. They had a man was not responsible, and a public trust, for the
had prevailed at most of the elections, and the result had been the reports of the commissioners naming the individuals exercise of which he was morally responsible. (Hear.)
the general demoralisation of the electors. At the election
in 1841 the two candidates spent no less a sum than who had either been guilty of bribery, or had been bribed He was quite willing, in dealing with this question, that
11,0001. in bribing and corrupting the electors. At the themselves. He proposed to deal with this class of per- the house should confine itself to the legal meaning of the
election in 1847 5,0001. was spent in the same way, 3,000 e. sons. They had their own statements as to the facts, and particular clauses in dispute, and, in the construction that
being on one side, a considerable portion of which went in he did not see why they should hesitate to deal with per- it was necessary to put upon them, he felt quite assured
direct bribery. No less than 500/. was expended in a
sons who, on their own admission, were unfit to exercise that the house wouldhave no desire to put fetters upon direct money bribe, while of the 1,500 odd electors no less the important functions of an elector. A difficulty had, itself. The clause to which the hon, and learned member
than 155 voters received direct bribes as the price of their however, been suggested to him—he confessed he did not I for Enniskillen more particularly referred was best ex-
votes. In
feel it himself—from a quarter for which he entertained I plained by the concluding words of it, which went to show
1852 it was not quite so bad, as there was only the most sincere respect. It was said they could not deal ' not only what was the meaning to be attached to the clause,
bribery on one side; but even then not less than 2,3501. with these parties, because, before they were examined, but what protection was extended from any penal cense-
was expended in corruption, of which at least 1,000/. was they were promised indemnity (Opposition cheers.) He quences which might otherwise be attendant on its being
spent in direct bribes. Besides the indirect bribery, it was quite understood these cheers ; and he fully admitted that carried out. (Hear, hear.) He could not agree with the
proved to •the commissioners that there had been 79 direct
cases
of bribery, of which 67 were freemen, and 12
were if such an indemnity. as
was supposed had been given either hon. and learned member for Enniskillen as to his reading
by the provisions of the act or virtually by any promise of this clause, inasmuch as he considered such reading, how-
householders. That was the state of things in the city of
Canterbury. The report of the Barnstaple commission which Parliament held out, how evergrave and serious ever original and independent it might be—(laughter) —not
gave a lamentable picture of the corruption which pre- might be the mischief with which they had to deal, it according to those grammatical rules which generally pre-
vailed in that borough. It appeared that the population
would be a less evil
.that corruption and venality should veiled, at least in this country. (Hear, hear.) To read the
escape than that Parliament should set the example of a clause as the hon. and learned gentleman proposed would,
was 11,371, while the constituency numbered 754 per- breach of faith, even towards the lowest and most con- in fact, be doing violence to it, and ruthlessly destroying
eons. At the last election the number of voters polled
Was 696, and of that number no less than 256, being temptible of mankind. (Hear, hear) He could not how. its meaning, than which nothing could be more clear and
ever see the slightest difficulty in the matter. It ap- explicit. (Hear, hear.) The sentences of which the clause
upwards of a third of the whole, received direct bribes peered to him that all Parliament had promised was ine. was composed must be read altogether, and not dismem-
for their votes. It was clear therefore, from the re-
port of the commission, that in the case of Barnstaple m` unied ty from personal and penal consequences. (Hear, bered and disjointed, to support particular or speculative
the election was invariably obtained by bribery; though hear.) The indemnity offered was similar to that given notions or constructions. (Cheers.)
he was bound to admit, that with regard to Barnstaple in the case of St. Albans and Sudbury. (Hear.) The Mr. WALPOLE said that the house ought to hesitate
the case was not so complete as that of the other boroughs ninth section of the act, which authorised the appointment and well consider the matter before it gave its consent to a
and for this simple reason :—it would be remembered of
.commissioners, provided that any person who gave measure of so great and vital importance as the present,
that an amendment was introduc.ed. in another place into evidence should be " freed from all penal actions, forfei- and one which might be so serious and momentous in its
tures, punishments, disabilities, incapacities, and criminal consequences and effects. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and
the act under which the commissioners acted, by which.
it was provided that the inquiry shouldnotextend back
prosecutions," to which he would otherwise have been sub- learned member the Solicitor-General had more than once
ject. Did those words apply to penal consequences then stated that the object of this statute was to put down
beyond the election where no bribery had taken place, or existing, or did it oust Parliament of its power and autho- bribery. What such object really was could only be tested
been complained of ; and inasmuch as in 1847 both parties rity to legislate specially with reference to such cases as and ascertained in two ways—namely, in the first place,
theto the contest mutually agreed to abstain from briberY, were reported upon ? He entertained uo doubt whatever by referring to the preamble of the act ; and, in the second
researches of the commissioners were necessarily con- that it was limited to the first. Further, he found that place, by going back to see what the intention of the
fined to election of 1852. In 1819, however, it was found after a witness had given his evidence he was to receive a framers of the act was, what particular meaning they
that bribery and corruption so extensively prevailed in the certificate from the commissioners, and the act went on to wished to be attached to its clauses, and whether we were
botough that a bill was brought in to correct the evil, the provide, that on the production of such certificate he acting up to such intention and in furtherance of and ac-
bill passed the Commons but was thrown out by the should have protection against—what ? " Against any cordance with such meaning. (Hear, hear.) If he referred
House of Lords. So much then for Barnstaple. With re- action, information, or indictment which may at any time to the first mode of testing the object of the act, he found
gird to the borough of Malden here also the report of the be preferred against him." He (the Attorney General) that it was simply one for the purposes of inquiry, and
commissioners showed a lamentable state of corruption. It therefore, entertained no doubt whatever as to what was nothing more, as could be clearly seen from the words of
appeared that the population was 5,470, and the consti- intended by the act. He did not wish, however, to look at the preamble, which distinctly and expressly stated that
tuency 845, of whom 235 were registered as occupiers of the matter with the narrow view of a lawyer. (Hear.) If such was the object of the statute. If he wished, on the
101. houses, and 620 as freemen. At the election in 18*.lti, Parliament held out any expectation that witnesses should other hand, to ascertain the object of the act from the
the only electors were freemen who had dwindled down to not be made to suffer any consequences besides provided intention of its framers, we should remember the par-
-50, but by corrupt means the number was raised to 2,000, against, Parliament ought not to punish them even for the titular occasion on which it was found to be neces-
and at thi election no less than 18,000/. was spent on
one purpose of getting rid of corruption. He did not admit, sary, and that it referred immediately to the two
side, ands2,ooo/. on the other, making together 30,000/. however, that Parliament had done anything of the kind. boroughs of Sudbury and St. Alban's. (Hear, hear.)
The two elections of 1830 and 1831 were without contest, What right had these parties to suppose that Parliament With respect to the first of these boroughs, it had been
but at all elections down to that of 1841, large sums of meant to grant an immunity which it did not grant ? The proved that out of 280 voters 220 had been bribed, and,
money were spent in corrupting the electors. In 1847 provisions of the statute were the same in the case of St. further, that a sum of 3,0001. had been sent down to
there was a contest, and of course considerable bribery Albans and Sudbury. Why should an immunity be en- the borough for the purposes of bribery—had been
and corruption were resorted to, no less than 2,1501. be- joyed by a minority when it is not enjoyed by a majority? made use of for such purposes, and upon a calculation
ing expended in beer alone. It was proved to the corn- (Hear, hear.) Besides if Parliament really meant to leave that such a sum world be more than sufficient, at the
missioners that, at the election in 1852 something like cases of ascertained corruption out of the general law on market price of the day, to bribe such 220 voters, and
75 persons received direct money bribes for their votes! the subject why were the commissioners directed to in- so, in fact, implicating a still greater number in
and they came to the conclusion that bribery had
the 8118-
uire ? (Hear, hear.) Above all, why were they directed picion of Corruption. With respect to St. Alban's, it was
extensively prevailed in the borough for many years 'l.o
name all thosewho had been found guilty of bribery ? proved that out of a number of 217 186 were bribed ; and
pad. That was the state then of the constituency of He apprehended that the simple object was to enable Par- out of a number of 280 no less than 240 were bribed. Mr.
Malden. He must now advert to the case of Kingston-
upon-Hull. From a short abstract of the report of the com- liament to deal with those particular cases, (Hear, hear.) Coppock had said of this place, that to deal with it in any missioners, he found that the constituency of that borough Now, these were the observations which suggested them- way it must be "bribed and bled ;" and Sir Robert Car-
selves to his mind, Standing in the position he had the den, one of the candidates for its representation, had re-
numbered 4,678 electors, of whom 3,184 were occupiers of
honour to hold, he had felt that he ought not to shrink ferred to it as a place "possessing no other principle of
houses. and 1,494 freemen. Well, then, with only that con-
stituency, at the election in 1841, there was spent no less a from expressing his opinion ; but at the same time, if the action except such as might be found in the breeches
sum than 10,5401., of which sum the commissioners had no house should come to the conclusion that Parliament had, pockets." (" Hear," and laughter.) The commissioners
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that 4,000/, and u either directly or indirectly, entered into a compact with also had spoken of the place as wholly and completely cor-
wards was expended in direct bribes to the freemen. A $ P.
these persons, that in the event of their giving full infer- rupt. (Hear.) Tho present measure, he believed, would
tem had in fact prevailed in the borough of paying " hea mation they should suffer no injury whatever, he would be be far more dangerous, because more general, and less
money," 41. being paid for a full vote, and 2/, fora spl'lt the last man to wish to take advantage of what they had effective, because less explicit than the statute of inquiry
vote; but it being found that this system would not
do it done. He did not think, however, that such a construe- to which he was referring, and which did not, as it ap-
was changed for a system of giving the voter colourable em- tion of the act was warranted. He thought it was the peared to him the present measure did, violate one of the
ployment, and in that manner the bribery had been carried duty of Parliament to grapple with the evil before them to great fundamental principles of our law—namely, that no
on up to the last election. At the election in 1841 the elec- the utmost of their ability, by special legislation applied to man should be called to condemn himself. (Cheers.) In
tors polled numbered 3,583, and of that number no less special cases, and under this feeling, he now felt it his St. Alban's and Sudbury the bribery committed was of two
than 1,300 received direct bribes for their votes. In the duty to ask leave to bring in a bill for the prevention of kinds, general and systematic. He had always contended
year 1847, there was a short contest,
which sum theeorn-
but short though it bribery in the election of members to serve in Parliament that, unless the corruption of any boroughcould be proved
was 6,8401. was expended upon it, of
for the borough of Canterbury. to be both general and systematic, Parliament had no
right
rnissioners said 1,650/. was spent in direct bribery The Mr. CAIRNS took a different view of the act under to punish the innocent as well as the guilty. (Hear.)
electors polled at this election numbered 3,618, of.wh which the several commissions were appointed, and con- The Attorney-General said the House of Commons could
1,175 were bribed. At the election in 1852, the expensesam tended that indemnity was provided for those who should not disfranchise these boroughs, and the only question was,
on the one side were 4,9201. and on the other 3,6311., while give evidence. The proposal, therefore; to disfranchise the whether, as the Solicitor-General somewhat incautiously
for the purposes of direct bribery on the orange side 2,235/. persons mentioned by the commissioners was adirect breach seemed to admit, you could deprive the electors of as right
a public faith and public honour. Mr. Cairns called upon which belonged to men whom, by the law of England, Par-
was spent, and on the blue side 1,300/. The commissioners the house to negative the motion. liament could not have called upon to convict themselves,
stated that out of 3,943 electors, 1,350 were paid for their Sir J. HANMER thought Mr. Cairns' advice was better except under an assurance of indemnity ? (Hear.) What
votes, and of these 1,050 were reported by name. The than that. given by the Attorney-General. He repelled an was the great principle at. stake iu this question? In other
next case in his list was that of the notorious borough of
Cambridge. The population of that borough was 28,000. accusation made against himself, in the Kingston-upon- countries men were punished upon their own evidence • but
hull report, of having countenanced foul practices. when a in this country the courts acted upon the principle so Often
The number of constituents was 1,887. Of theso, it ap-
peared, from 150 to 200 never voted at all, lest by so d?- candidate for the representation of that borough in 1841. laid down by Lord Eldon, that you were never to put a
' they should their
mg injure interests—so teat the VOL- Sir John's election experiences, as detailed by himself, loan into a position in which it would be to his interest to
ing constituency was between 1,00 and 1,700. At the seemed to afford the house much amusement. commit perjury rather than tell the truth. Parliamenthad
first four elections after the passing of the Reform Bill, no Mr. PHINN deprecated the introduction of personal said to these electors, "We will indemnify you, so that it
corruption existed; the franchise was exercised in a Tatters into the discussion. The question should be argued will be no longer your interest to commit perjury;" but if
straightforward and legitimate manner. But the elections upon general grounds, namely, having received the reports the present act were passed and persons were disfranchised
having gone four times the same way, the opposite party of the commissioners, what is to be clone with them ? In who had been indemnified from all the consequences of
his view, the course ken by the Attorney-General is the giving their evidence, he should like to know where they
determined to have recourse to corruption, and they • t correct one. The indemnity can only be construed as ap- would get witnesses in future to give the evidence that was
down and organised a most complete system of temptatiosn4 plying to exemption from disabilities which then existed. to deprive them of that right, which ought not to be taken
details of which wore given by the commissioners. A Mr'
Samuel Long, who was notorious in the annals of Cam At St. Albans and Sudbury the indemnity was given, and away from them except by evidence from other quer-
s yet both boroughs were disfranchised. ters ? (Cheers.) The commissioners themselves, in their
bridge bribery, appeared to be the master mind and t
of the whole. There was one man whose business
it p• '
wirals Mr. NAPIER, said, the ground on which he would take aeport to her Majesty, spoke of the importance of the act of
to sound or tempt the voters. This man insinuated him- his stand was, shortly, the clause of indemnity. (Hear.) Parliament giving
self amongst the poorer voters whom he found in the the indemnification, because it peared
That clause went upon the old established principle, that that the very witnesses who had been examineap d before
public
houses, telling them it did not signify how they votd 80 no man was bound to criminate himself. (Hear.) No min committees of the House of Commons, and upon oath, had
that they could make money, and when he found that they was bound to answer a question that would expose him to not told the truth before those committees, but had told
were persons who might be worked upon, he put
clownforfeiture of any nature whatever. Such was the law, as the truth to the commissioners, because they were indem-
their names as persons who were to be further
tempted. laid
down by the best authorities ; yet here, upon the con- nified. (Hear, hear.) But when future commissions
s
Then there was an individual whose business it we
to fession and answer of the witnesses, it was proposed to should be sent into the country, and when witnesses saw
act on that suggestion by seizing a suitable opportunity of make them forfeit their franchise. The words of the act that they were no longer indemnified, but that they would
offering a bribe. If the man
swallowed the temptation he were, that such persons shall be freed from all "penal ac- be visited with disfranchisement if they spoke the truth,
was set down as a safe person, and then Mr. Long com- tions," and "from forfeiture," &c. To deprive a man of was there not great danger that perjury would be again
menced. Tho commissioners reported that after the first his franchise was a forfeiture and permanent disability. committed ? Why, he wanted to know, was the Attorney-
election it was not necessary for Mr. Long to make an offer This was the hard and rigid construction of the law ; but General about to deal with all these case's of individual
of a bribe; a look, a gesture, or the fact of a man's having taking the clause in its spirit and intention, he would say bribery, because they came before him in a mass, in a
called upon him, was sufficient. The voter was sure
to that there could be no manner of doubt that the object of different way from that in which cases had been dealt
get_ the reward. The commissioners stated that the the Legislature was to indemnify the voter in such circum. with that had been reported upon by committees of that
had ascertained that an unbroken chain of corrupt prat- stances stances as these. (Hear, hear.) house? (Hear, hear.) What could be the object of the
tices had existed from 1839; that in 1840 8001, was dis- Mr. KENNEDY said he understood that evidence had Legislature in passing the acts of Parliament relative to
tributed in bribery ; that in 1841 Mr. Long distributed been given of the fact of bribes having being received be- an inquiry into these boroughs ? One object was, that
between five and six hundred pounds. In 18-13, the re- fore recourse was had to thsi electors themselves ; and that they might deal—as , they had dealt with St. Alban's
port said, a very curious incident occurred. A Dr. Bart- the object of calling the electors was to give them an op- and Sudbury—with any boroughs where they found them
lett received instructions to come from Cambridge to portunity of defending themselves, if improper evidence in so corrupt a state that they could no longer be trusted
Charing-cross, where some one would recognise him by a had been produced against them. In these circumstances, with the right of returning members. The other oh-
:signal ; Dr. Bartlett came, and was not deceived in his he thought a boon had been conferred upon the parties ject was, that Parliament should have a mass of evidence
expectation ;an individual appeared, who gave him a bag rather than otherwise, and the house had, unquestionably, with reference to those boroughs accused of bribery
containing 1,000 sovereigns, which ho took back to Cara a right to see that justice was duly done to the honest and and corruption, so that Parliament might be enabled to
bridge, and the whole of this money, with 3001. more respectable portion of the constituency. deal retrospectively with the matter by some general law.
which was also obtained mysteriously, was spent in bribing Mr. MASSEY believed it was avowed on all sides that,
cleric© so obtained; for in this Bribery Prevention Bill, The noble lord (J. Russell) had thus acted upon the evi-
the voters of Cambridge. Another election took place in unless the indemnity stood in the way, there was really no
1845. The candidate, who was examined, stated that he substantial argument against the proposal of the Attorney- brought in during the present session, he called upon Par-
had nothing to do with the providing of any money; General. Could it ever be intended by Parliament to go liament to enact that where a person had been convicted of
nevertheless some individual put down the sum of 800/., to the extent of giving a man who had been guilty of cor- bribery he was to be disqualified for life from again voting
the whole of which was spent in bribery. On this occa- rupt practices immunity for life? It appeared to him that in elections of members of that house. (Hear, hoar.) That
sion Long spent as much as 1,000/. At the election of it would be absurd and unconstitutional to pretend that was right legislation, and he should never complain that
1847, in consequence of the very excited feelings which any act of the Legislature could or would confer on a voter parties guilty of bribery should be disqualified after due
give
evidence
indemnification,a ga i nst
againstvio
and violating tt ihnegn thetak taking
lawg themselves,
uponby
away inducing
ththeei
rassurance
votesparties
prevailed through the agitation of the corn law question, any immunity to that extent, (Hear.) The immunity notice. But he protested, in the most earnest and solemn
which o f t n
an
the idea of turning the scale by means of bribery was promised in the act was to protect him from legal conse-
manner,
deemed hopeless, and consequently no extensive corrup- quences, but it was not to be a title-deed for corruption all
Jim was practised. He now came to the election of 1852. the rest of his life. (Hear, hear.) What was this right of At that election 1,6001. was contributed by the two candle which it was proposed to deprive the corrupt voter? There they thought they should not lose by reason of that
inemaluinsgt
cleat
walilththtehseem boroughs.
applied oughs.
some
in-
dates who were returned. In addition to that 1250/. were gentlemen in that house who looked upon the fran-
demnification. (Hear, hear.) He could not shut his
rdifficulty was supplied from local sources, the whole of which wag chise as an indefeasible right, but the constitution of this eyes
aid pari
a oLd
ap.plied for bribery. Of 1,540 voters who polled, 111 re- country did not say so. A man might be in possession of He was
calved direct bribes. In reference to that occasion, the this franchise, and that house, from high reasons of policy, way, but he could not see the distinction between dis-
commissioners spoke of the utter uselessness of the bribery might deprive him of it. In this way whole constituencies qualifying any one of the voters of these boroughs, and
oath. It appeared that while all this bribery was at its had been deprived of the franchise, and could it for a me- not having disqualified one voter during the last century
height, it was the custom in Cambridge to put the bribery ment be said that the house had not the same right in the
who, by the committee of the House of Commons, had
oath, and the only voter who refused to take it was a per- case of individuals ? (Hear, hear.) What would be the been declared guilty of bribery. (Hear.) It was in his
judgment more important to keep faith with those who had
son who had conscientious scruples against the taking of effect if they did not pass this bill ? Writs would go down
been induced to give evidence by the solemn promise of an
any oath. The commissioners stated that many of the to all these places, and they would have persons who, on
indemnity than to punish the great mass of bribery com-
bribed voters whom they examined stated that they their own confession, had abused the electoral trust, but
mated in those boroughs by a retrospective law. Nor ought
had no political opinions at all ; they were no scholars, who had this immunity conferred on them, returning
the house to lose sight of this fact—that these voters ought
they hardly knew which was which, and they members to that house. (Hear, hear.) On grounds of
not to be deprived of a locus pcnitentice. (Cheers.) It was
voted according as they were directed by the persons Public policy, then, as well as on grounds of common sense
said that unless these persons were disfranchised Parlia-
to whom they sold their votes, the 101. being of and common decency, they were bound to pass the present
more service to them than anything else. Of the 111 voters bill. (Hear, hear.) meat would give an immunity for future corruption. Far
thbribed in 1852, 30 signed their names with a mark. Now Mr. WHITESIDE said, in considering the principle of from it. There was the bill of the noble lord (J. Russell),
,„e-
-which enacted that if these or any other parties committed
were the parts of the rorts of the commissioners,' this bill, the question came to be, could they by law in
whichw he had thought, it necessary to bring before the house. this country act on a man's confession? There were parts acts of bribery in future, they were to be deprived of their
vl:,a_aes reeite clear that the state of the constituencies to of the world where they might extort confession from a votes. (Hear, hear.) He had not read these for
renrt.ll 11
dome weeks, but in one of them—he believed in. the u
```' he.had referred was a reproach and a scandal, not man, and act upon it ; but by the. law of England that
"1Y tO the
at tar commission report—a schedule was given in which cases of
onstituencies themselves, but to the country could not be done. It occurred to him that they ought to
couldt, rd to that h ) d interpret this ttt as thosepersons who had been affected
house--(hear, ear —an if anything s a u e bribery were mentioned as having been committed by
parties during the last four or five elections. In other
duty X.elione to purge and purify such bodies, it was the by it would read and understand it. It was distinctlylaid
the smiatejoarnharnent to do it. (Hear, hear,) 'Thencame down that no testimony given by a voter before the corn- boroughs the same parties had been guilty of these acts at
might be ea.---d,what course ought the house to pursue ? It missioner should be used hereafter against him. The voter, two. or three elections. Now, was the Attorney-General.
tion on the is h.
that they should rely upon general legisla- having been examined, received his certificate, and could going to disfranchise parties who had been guilty of bribery
at two or three elections, but not at the last ? The Atter-
which wa3.prii. iep.teither that which now existed, or that not be proceeded against at law, and his vote still remain.ed•
nay-General shook his head, but if the objection were
Be did not b.- ireu•
eve t
He could not concur in that opinion. On what principle was it that they proposed to deprive
confined to those who had been guilty of bribery at the
to bribery and co hat any general legislation in reference that person of his right to vote whom they could not sub-
last election, the
liament had beentruP
t_stionioeyould cure the mischief. Par. ject to a criminal prosecution ? (Hear, hear.) The words
was a retrospective
centuries ;it had g forthis purpose for nearly two of the act were, that the person examined as a witness
who had committed these acts,(liea
ment replied that it law.
objection was just as strong that this
Govern-
oathpersonsmutated
_.statute upon statute, added touching such corrupt practices "shall be freed from all was necessary to punish (Hear
he hear)
had
to oath, multiplied
what result let the elooti_ P:ealttes and forfeitures—with penal actions, from forfeitures, from punishment, fromsholev.fhntththheaet if they
occurred again they could be punished under a general act.
ttikillin declare. (Hear, hear.) disabilities, and from incapecities." There he would stop,
There were, indeed, bite
efore that house. His for that, in his opinion, settled the question. The clause But not even for the great object of condemning and
noble friend the leader of the
punishing these acts would he consent to violate the funds-
payment illegal whiellhouse proposed to make then went on to say that he was also to be free from all
every
mental law of England, or. induce the feeling that Parlacknowledged and authorised awataentrwt. made' through an criminal prosecution to which he might be liable at the suit
ment had been guilty of a breach of faith, and that gross -
in_hile the hon. mem- of her Majesty. The fair reading of the act—for they were
in-
ber for Suffolk proposed that all pa
emu should be made not to quibble in that house as to the meaning of acts of Justice had been committed. (Cheers.)
through an authorised, election oii
eel-. How would any Parliament—was, that nopereons were to be punished after Mr. WARNER thought that the house had been some-
such legislation as that touch the eaee of
hear ) It
At the electiooffn, ihnellBasw2
Cambridge
. with ev
the borough of having been induced to confess. Ho believed this country what taken by surprise by the nature of the measure. He
Cambridge ? (Hear,
not. might
h the sitting would. always act according to the principles of strictjustice. thought they ought not to reject at so early a stage any
member, but it would prevent tent"!
d. and partisans (fiear, eer.) The object of the act of Parliament was to bill which had received the sanction of the Government.
from subscribing their money.
enable them to get evidence to warrant them to do what He should vote for the first reading without pledging him-
positiontwo gentlemen went down to.
they •such St. Albans,and • h
ery dis- (lid in cases as
to keep strictly within the limit
with the means of framing a general law against bribery, feel that very serious objections had been urged against
taking every precaution to prevent themselves
but it did not empower them to get all they could out of it. (Cheers.)
implicated in bribery. One of thosegentles -°al ueing
"E'en 'was his witnesses tempti ri• them to tell all they knew, and then Mr. SCOTT held that the house would do better if they
han. friend Mr. Macaulay, who, like rho other candidate, to turn round uponfiand Punish them on the groUnd of their extracted evidence by torture or by the thumbscrew rather
agreed to pay 6001, towards the expenses, and who
keenly solicitous that not, he evidence Ho did not catch from the Attorney-General than by violating thefaith of England, given under a, sacred
was bound to say, was
ng for how many years he intended to go back with the bill.
should be done that could give to the election a corrupt Th rp -a" promise to those persons who had afforded all the informa-
e A ro NE Y-GENERAL said he proposed to in- Con Parliament could desire to have, because they had been
character. This eentleman, who would, no doubt, at
to that h capacitate those who were proved before the commissioners assured that if they so gave information they would not be
no distant day, have been an ornamentouse, to have been bribed. [An hon. MEMBER ...... How far visited with any penalties. He would read the indemnity
after being returned, had a petition presented againstt him back do you go?] There was but one report on which he clause of the act of Parliament in a lay sense, and then the
and, without any fault of his own, had the agar tune to went back beyond the past year. horse would see that these parties had been fairly inveigled
lose his seat. That was a lamentable position for any gen- , Mr. WHITESIDE thought it would be satisfactory to into giving evidence under false pretences. (Hear, hear.)
tleinan to be placed in, and they ought to adopt vigorous allO whether they wore going back to the beginning of Having read the indemnity clause of the act, he contended
measures to put a stop to such a state of things. (Hi ea.r, the_ century or not ? (Laughter.) that any person looking at it in a general sense would come
hear.) He repeated that he did not believe general cps. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—If that question was to the conclusion that such individuals giving evidence
lation would suffice. General legislation might prevent the psouetutdothoino. all h.e had to say was that he would not conde. should be free from all incapacities. He asked wuether, for
introduction of corrupt practices in a constituency, but answer it. (" Oh ! oh !" and laughter.) the sake of purifying boroughs, the house would do a thing
when the whole or a large portion of a constituency had Mr. 'WHITESIDE must
say that he was not aware of more corrupt than that of which they complained—violate
become corrupt, general legislation would not meet the having put an Improper question to the learned Attorney- their faith to those individuals who had given their evidence
special le- General..A.A (Hear.) He did not quite understand, and on that faith?
ease. He thought they must have recourse to
gialation applicable to special circumstances. Where cor- neither "i" the hezh gentleman behind him, one part of Mr. W, Co, STANLEY thought, if the present measure
ruption was
on the subject; but the learned' Attorney-General would appointing thosenceodi'n
and a question was put were not eanctio
rid of th •
total or very extensive, they must either get the Attorney-General's proposal,
tmhiesssiooonnsetrhtehheyetrteepr.ealed the act for
e constituency, as such, altogether, or purify it by
allow him to say that it was no answer to tell them that The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in reply, expressed some
(as was tuiderstood) joining it to other bodies. Well, then,
house shonid concur 'with him in thinking that they Were Tho ATTORNEY'ggnRAL said the reason why he thing like an exhibition. Nothing could be further fro
en