The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-11 00:00:00

Toter's residence. If he asked him to dine with him after
a long day's work, it would be very hard to declare him
guilty of treating ; he thought the word "corruptly" ought
be inserted.
to
VT.II:BNIEY said that the nobe lord the member for
Dindon and his right hon. friend the member for 3lidhurst
had put different constructions on the clause • the latter
had said that the words "in order to be elected" had re-
ceived a judicial -interpretation, and were held to mean
"corruptible influences," but the noble lord Said they meant
any kind of treating. Thus two members of the select com-
mittee differed in their interpretation of the clause. He
would support the amendment, and not leave so important
a matter to the varying decisions of election committees.
The word " corruptly," ought to be made to override the
whole clause.
Mr. COLLIER thought that the clause ought to extend
to every species of treating ; let any honourable member
that wished move a provision to exempt 4311,903 when it was
done by the agreement of both sides.
Mr. WHITESIDE said that they ought to consider the
clause carefully before adopting it. He had always been
of opinion that moderate treating was legal, and that Lord
Lyndhurst had so decided. The clause provided for three
offences—to accept with a motive, to give with a corrupt
motive, or to give without a corrupt motive. If the latter
was to be an offence, it was unnecessary to specify the case
of corruption.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said his view or the mat-
ter and the result of the decision was, this :—when re-
freshment was given to a voter who would not come to the
poll without it and his travelling expenses, it was clearly
money or money's worth given to a, voter to induce him to
vote, and, therefore, within the words of the statute of
William. He should be understood as solely referring to
the case put by the member for the West Riding of re-
freshment given to a voter who would not come to the
poll unless ne received it.
Mr. E. BALL suggested that all difficulty might be got
over by moving the word " corruptly " from the 27th to
the first line of the clause, so that it might overrule the
whole.
Mr. PHINN said that the objectof the statute of William
was to diminish the expenses of elections. The committee
in the case of North Cheshire had decided that under it
moderate treating was legal. Sir Robert Peel and the noble
lord the member for London had approved of this decision
but circumstances had greatly changed since then ; the
time of polling was reduced to one day, and any number
of polling places might be erected, so that even moderate
treating was no longer necessary, and ho thought it might
to be put a stop to. They could establish a different rule
for counties and boroughs. He would suggest that the
clause be allowed to pass as it stood, and another brought
up to meet the -case of refreshment and travelling ex-
penses.
Mr. WALPOLE thought it desirable to adopt the sug-
gestion of the hon. member for Cambridgeshire. In that
ease he hoped his right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) would
withdraw his amendment. The clause did not extend to
travelling expense& The matter had been discussed in the
select committee, who had differed in opinion, and thought
it better to allow the matterlo be left to the decision of
the house.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would adopt the sugge3-
tion, on the understanding that 'another clause was to be
proposed, as suggested by the member for B eth. It that
clause were rejected, he reserved to himself the right to
move to reinsert the word " corruptly" in the 27th line on
bringing up the report.
• Sir t. KELLY entirely concurred in the course sug-
gested by Mr. Walpole. He trusted that the subjects of
refreshment tickets and travelling expenses of the voters
would be put separately to the house. In addition to the
clauses of his right hon. friend, he hoped the question as
to the legality or illegality of the act would be .distinctly
raised for the opinion of the house in full etteud4nce.
There should be no distinction in the law between coun-
ties and boroughs. It was a matter of considerable mo-
ment to the former that some reasonable refreshment
should be allowed to voters coming in men; instance.; from
a great distance to the poll.
Mr. HENLEY would withdraw the amendment of his
right lion friend the member for Droitwich ea the un ler-
standing that the word "corruptly" would be inserted.
After a few words from Mr. V. SCULLY and Mr.
THORNELY,
Mr. BARROW said that if tho.expenses of the county
voters were not paid, half of the county constituents would
be disfranchised. He could never consent to give his vote
to that effect.
In answer to Mr. CAYLEY,
Mr. COLLIER sad he would postpone pressing his
amendment until the bringing up of the report, when he
hoped GovJrnme it would take the matter in hand.
Sir J. WALMSLEY stated that in the West Riding
there were at least 36,00) electors. If each elector wore
to get 25., they might easily estimate what a large sum it
would amount to. Under such circumstances none but
the most wealthy could stand as representatives for such
districts.
Mr.DENISONsaid that in 1807 the expenses of the West
Riding election came to 250,0301., and in 1326 to 170,00 T.
Even now, when brought down to the lowest possible
limits the amount was not under 14,00 J/. It was, there-
fore, hardly necessary for him to state how desirous the
county members wore to stop corruption. All they wished
for was to afford some refreshment to those who spent a
whole day in journeying to the poll. It was different in a
borough election, where a man could record his vote and
return to his work with scarcely any loss of time, ana
without being pat to inconvenience. Ho challenged the
house to show if corruption in the counties approached
in any degree the extent of bribery practised in the
boroughs.
Mr. FOX said he had been returned three times to Par •
liament by one small borough, and that these three elec.
tiers bad not cost him three shillings. Many other now
boroughs had continued untainted till some wealthy gen-
tlemen, ambitions for senatorial honours, had come into
the field and commenced canvassing. If they would try
the ballot, it would bo of little consequence how high the
refreshment ticket might be.
Mr. WILLIAMS had known the case of an election won
by a large breakfast given to a party of electors.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and clause 4 was
then agreed to.
On clause 9 being read,
Mr. MALINS moved the insertion of the words,
"spiritual or temporel." He said that the words in the
clause were "damage, harm, or loss," but did not include
the damage supposed to accrue from spiritual denunciations
from the altar. To meet this latter case he proposed the
insertion of the words.
The committee divided—
For the amendment
Against
Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
On the question that the clause stand part of the bill,
Mr. H. BERKELEY thought that the clause would be
quite inoperative in preventing intimidation. How could
they prove undue influence by a landlord ? He would
undertake to prove that in ninety-nine cases out of a
hundred, of intimidation, no threatening was used by
landlord to tenant, or by tradesman to customer. To
show the difficulty of proving intimidation, he would just
mention a case. At the Bristol election there were three
candidates—M`Geachy, Berkeley, and Langton. A
tradesman and elector of that city—a greengrocer —had
always voted for the liberals ; but on this occasion was
canvassed by a tory innkeeper, his beat customer, for
3i!Geschy. He voted for the liberal, and on his next ap-
plication to the innkeeper for an order, ho was threatened
Y
to be kicked out of the house. How could they rpplthe
clause to that case? The clause would be perfectly
in-
operative in such a case, and it would be, inoperative
against the landlord if the landlord thought proper to hold
his tongue, and it would beperfectly inoperative in dealing
with the election screw- in any case where it was systema-
tically applied. He had, he contended, a right to sift this
clause, because it was in direct opposition to the 200 mem-
bers who voted in favour of his motion to establish the
ballot, and in opposition to the view of the Solicitor and
Attorney-General and one half of the members of the Go-
vernment.
Mr. V. SMITH intimated an intention to take the
mire of the committee against the words in clause 5,
" or any fraudulent device or contrivance." He complained
that the clause would not have any effect in meeting the
great tyranny of the transfer of custom, and anoth r defect
was that, while it punished the man who exercised undue
influence it did not punish the person who profited by such
undue influence.
Mr. WALPOLE opposed the amendment, which was
withdrawn, and after a short conversation,
Mr. V. SMITH then moved the addition of weals for
the purpose of invalidating any vote obtained by means of
undue influence or intimidation.
Mr. WALPOLE and Mr. J. PHI:A.I3IOAZ opposed the
amendment.
Mr. HILDYARD thought nothing would tend so much
to discouragement of intimidation as the knowledge that
votes obtained in that way would be thrown away.
Mr. NEWDEGATE considered the suggestion of Mr. V.
Smith a valuthia one and that its adoption would go far
to meet that kind of intimidation which, by means ororgan-
joie(' mobs, to bring
afforded facilities was which to the 'soiling place the railways
the electors to to
prevent
was now frequently brought bear upon
the free exercise of their right of
Colonel BLAIR suggested that
sgussome means should be
provided for punishing the di
which prevailed occasionally atting offence of spitting
elections in Scotland.
The LORD ADVOCATE had no
all loubt the disgusting practice his hon. and gallant friend alluded to would CODIO
within the general term of intimidationass included in this
clause; if he thought it would not;Ps self suggest a clause on the subject. he would him-
Mr. Per ATHERTON supported the amendment,
Mrlause to remain . LIDDELL (Live
as it rpool
was), thoughtitbeti
the cer to teio ji
. Mr. ItULLINGS opposed the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL considered the introduction of the
words proposed would lead to confusion. If a
convicted of having exercised intimidation
ornunduweea
- finance on certain voters, and evidence were
gi
• fact, and that they had given their voteisinmeoignhsvteeieueonfcethoef
such intimidation or undue influence, t
to disfranchise them ; but if a person could come prop
to
petition to that house, and upon the allegation that such a
voter had been intimidated, and that such an one, for ha
ing voted for a particular candidate, had obtained a trail::
fcrence of his custom from some other tradesman, it would
be difficult to sustain any return.
Mr. V. SMITH stated that he would take the sense of
the committee upon the amendment, and
The committee divided—
For the amendment

, 26
, 125
.--99

63

Against it l32— 69
The clause was then passed.
Clauses 6,7, 8,9, were agreed to.
On cleave 10 which referred to legal agencies,
Mr. E. DENISON suggested that the clause wonl I pre-
vent the employment of all local agencies.
Mr. LIDDELL thought that the disabilities of agents
was carried too far, and he moved the omission of the
eianse and the substitntione of the following : "If any
-Terson shall, either during any election of a member to
'servain parliament, or within six calendar months pre-
-164" to such election, or within fourteen
at days h
electionaftit
iihell_have" been completed, be employed
I/45 c4l4selii all:ent, attorney, poll-clerk, fligman, or in any
other eapacity,tar the purposes of such election, and shall
at anytime, either before, during, or after such election,
accept or take- from any finch candidate or candidate., or
from any person whatsoever, for or in consideration of, or
with reference to such employment, any sum or stuns of
money, retaining fee, office, place, or employment, or any
promise or security for any sum or sums of money, retein-
- mg fee, office; pl ce, or employment, such person shall be
:deemed incapable of voting ateuch election, and his "'cite,
-if given, shall be utterly void and of none effect, sue shall
render him liable to forfeit the sum of fifty pounds to any
:person who shall sue for the same, together with fall costs
of suite"
me. W. ATHERTON thought the clause most objection-
able. If it was the intention of the bill that a candidate
at an election should be his own counsel, agent, or poll
clerk, let it say so directly, and not indirectly. Nothing
could be more reasonable than that a candidate should have
amisediewe, An agent, an attorney, who, to be of use, should
live on the spot, Nor had his objection been removed by