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

ROYAL• COMMISSION.

Mr. •PUtunx, Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, ap-
peared at the bar, and summoned the house to attend in
the House of Lords to hear the Royal Assent given to
se-rermillii!411111111111111ik.

The house went into committee oe this bilL
Lord J. RTISSELL said that the. select committee 'to
which the bill had been referred had gone through it with
great care, and had amended it in some respects. Several
clauses had been added, taken from the bill of the how
member for Suffolk, an-i alters from the bill of the right
hoe. and learned member for 3lidhurst. There was another
clause with respect to the election officer, which, although
its spirit was contained in the original bill, must yet be
considered' as a new clause. It was of great importance,
and in his opinion calenlated to do much good. The Con-
troverted Elections' Bill had been referred to the same
committee, but it was obviously too lateto proceed further
with it during the present session. ' •
Mr. WALPOLE concurred as to the expediency of post-
ponement.
Mr. LIDDELL said that as the Controverted Election
Bill was to be postponed, the sloti Lte which he had given
respecting it must necessarily fall to the ground.
Clause I was agreed to without discussion.
Clause 2, penal clause.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE suggested the insertion of the words
"authorised person," or " any. person on his behalf."
Mr. WALPOLE considered that the phraseology of the
clause quite satisfied the necessities of the case.
Mr. AGLIONBY considered that the insertion of the
words would be highly dangerous, and might often lead to
the punishment of an innocent person. He had himself
narrowly saved his seat against a charge of agency, although
as innocent as the child unborn. •
Mr..PHILLIMORE thought the clause as it stood suffi-
cient.

Mr. V. SCULLY considered that authorisation ought to
be proved before the sitting members was made liable to
penalties for the illegal acts of another person.
Mr. DISRAELI urged that the question ought to be con-
sidered not merely with regard to the interpretation which
the courts of law would put upon the clause, but the inter-
pretation a committee of that house would be likely to put
upon it. On that view ho thought the introduction of the
words suggested advisable—it was a word well under-
stood, and conveyed a meaning which he believed would
conduce to the administration of justice. (Hear, hear.)
For himself he would be disposed to go st;11 flu ther and
insert the words "legally or actually authorised."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that this was
a penal enactment and must be construed strictly. It was
a well known rule of law that no man could be held
criminally guilty unless it was shown that he intentionally
committed the criminal act, and no man could be held
criminally responsible for the act of another unless he ac-
tually employed or authorised such other person to do the
criminal act. With regard, however, to the civil conse-
quences, an election committee Would hold that a general
authorisation of the agent was sufficient, but if the words
proposed wera ins,erted, a special authorisation in each
particular case of bribery 'would have to be proved. Ho
thought the clause stood perfectly well as it was.
Sir F. KELLEY agreed with his hon, and loftrnod
friend that the proposed amendment was unnecessary. In
a civil action, or for the purpose of successfully prosecuting
a petition before an election committee, the illegal act
done by the agent would in law be deemed the act of the
principal, but this clause was iutroduced with a view to
criminal proceedings, and no one could be convicted of
any criminal offence by means of any constructive autho-
rity, supposed to bo conferred upon an agent by whom
the criminal act was committed. If the committee should
be of opinion that any alteration of the dame was neces-
sary it would be better to adopt the suggestion of his
right hon. friend (Mr. Disraeli), and insert in each clause
after the word person " actually authorised ;" but for his
own part he thought the insertion of the proposed words
would do more harm than good.
Sir J. WA.LMSLEY, Lord SEYMOUR, and Mr. HENLEY
spoke in favour of altering the clause as suggested.
After a few words from Mr. PHINN and Mr. AGLIONBY,
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that under the old act of
Geo. ll.—the words of which were adopted in this clause
—if money was given to a voter, either directly or indi-
rectly, it was bribery; ,but it _was considered, and the pre-
amble of the bill declared, that, whereas the existing law
was insufficient to check the offence, more effective mea-
sures-were necessary ; but the effect of tho amendment
would be not to make the law more efficient, but less so.
Mr. lIILDYARD said the danger WAS not that the
courts of law would convict without the authorisation of
the agent wan proved—of that he had no fear, but that
the Election Committee of the House of Commons might
pronounce the principal guilty of bribery on account of an
act committed by his agent, and of which he had no know-
lodge, and so not only deprive him of his seat, but dis-
qualify him from sitting. lie thought it desirable that
some words should bo inserted to remove all doubt as to
tho intentions of Parliament in this matter.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL remarked that election
committees had always held that the candidate was re-
sponsible for the acts of his authorised agent, though no
special authority to do any particular act was proved. He
considered the
,proposed words wholly unnecessary, and
that, if inserted, they would do mere mischief than the
bill, if passed, would do good. He believed the object
with which they were proposed was to introduce a change
in the law of election committees in this respect.
Mr. M. MILNES,heId that every precaution should be
taken to prevent a man from being punished, not for any
offence which he had committed, or which had been com-
mitted by his authority, but for political and party pur-
poses.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE denied that ho had any intention of
making tile law fin• the trial of election petitions less strin-
gent than it was ; but, as the tribunal was composed of
simple country gentlemen, and not lawyers, the law they
had to administer should be left as far as possible beyond
doubt.

Mr. HEA.DLA.A I thought the introduction of the words
would be not only useless but mischievous. •
Mr. V. SMITH intimated that, if the amendment was
pressed, be should vote for it.

_
Sir E. PERRY supported the suggested alteration. If
the insertion of the words would have the effect, which he
thought it would, of throwing a doubt on the law of civil
agency, the house ought to pause before they agreed
to them when they were only considering a penal
clause. The words had been proved to be unnecessary.
If the words "on his behalf" were omitted, the clause
would be quite as efficient for its purposes. He hoped, as
no one could be found guilty under this act, unless it was
shown that he gave direct authority to bribe, that the
house would not agree to any such amendment.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that he would formally move as
an amendment, that after the word "person," the word
" authorised" be introduced, and ho should divide the
committee on it.,
After a few words from Mr. MANGLES and Mr. GROGAN,
Lord J. RUSSELL said there seemed to be some diffi-
culty felt as to what was the intention of the clause and
how it bore on the law of election committees. The ques-
tion was the punishing of bribery, and was a different
question from the law on election committees, which had
no power to punish. If a person appointed an agent who
bribed, though he might not be guilty of . bribery himself,
if his election was carried by bribery it would be a void
election ; but what they Were now dealing with was the
penalty to be inflicted on persons guilty
regard to what had been said by his noble friend (Lord
a bribery. With
i
Seymour) about a person going: into a town and dealing
with persons so as to compromise his master, it lied been
answered by the Attorney-General, who quoted the high
taeurtphroortietil of Lord
words Lyndhurst,
eh
balf" of the Treating Act of who, when Chief Baron, in.
William the Third, not to include any person who was not
Auldisnotthboneglhiatble the to
proposed a penalty.
authorised by a candidate, and therefore in the case of any
one acting on behalf of a candidate without his authority,
amendment
sulirchreo.
W.would seriously damage the bill.
iiirdatleLwLl°
For the amendment
Against
it
................................... 110
Majority ............ ............................ 141.
...
Lord R. GROSVENOR ............
-31
inquired whether this clause
would put an end to the mischievous
fares of voters coming up to vote at re ac
ct
it ic e of paying the
The ATTORNEY- GENERALons
said it did
not touch
that case ; as the law stood, if those fares were paid colour-
ably, and as a cloak to bribery, they
ry, were illegal; but paid
bona fide, and am •
ounting to only the real expenses, they
were legal.
Mr. AGLIONBY asked whether the words " •
money" in the clause
, included sums paid to an attorney
or recognised legal advisor of a candidate ?
Mr. WALPOLE said there was a proviso at the end of
the clause which provided that bona fide legal expenses
might be paid.
The clause was agreed to..
Ort„clause 3, which defines the offence of bribery,
Mr. HENLEY urged that the words " ask for" were
oo stringent. It might make a man who asked for a shil-
;,ug to drink guilty of a misdemeanour. .eet

Mr. PHINN said the clause was intended as a protection
to the candi:late who might be asked for any place or gift,
and who could at onco answer that the mere asking for it
rendered a persm guilty of a misdemeanour.
After a short conversation,

Mr. HEADLAM moved the omission of the words•

Mr. HILDYARD said any vagabond in any constituency
would be entitled to sue for a penalty of 101. from any
person whom he could swear had " asked for" any sum.
Mr. 1).11INN said at prevent any vagabond might swear

/1'

~" L

'~G

~j~L~

.that a person had stolen his watch, and it was left to the
good sense of the jury to determine. . • Mr. WHITZSIDE should like to have a definition of the
new dtfence, " irdireetlraik for" The
-ATTORNEY—GENBIZAL thought-the words
_had
better remain as they were. They formed a protections
candidates. Half the cases in which it was alleged the
candidates had been guilty of personal corruption had.
been cases in which voters had asked for something. Every
candidate was exposed to this in the course of his canvass.
The voter said, " /vial, you would give my son an ap-
pointment," and it would be a great thing for the candi
date to say, "you are asking me for something, and that
asking involves you in a penalty."
I. BUTT did not think that their object ought to
be merely to throw protection over the candidates. What
was " indirectly asking for ?" A. person might shake his
head, awl that might be said to be indirectly asking for.
Mr. GOU.LBURN agreed with. the hon. and Named
gentleman who spoke last that they ought to Eave some
consideration for the voters. A voter might say, "I wish
you would do something-for my son," and
,the candidate
might reply, "Yon have committed an offence in Raking'
me for that." But the Offence was committed before the:
reply could be given, and the effect might be that the voqi.
would give that candidate his vote lest he shoul(l punish'
him. The protection of the candidate was sufficient in•
his being able to say "My good friend,-if you receive any.
thing front me, that will be.an.offenee."- -
Sir J. PAKINGTON very-much doubted
.whetbele
candidate would tell a voter he had committed an dIT-eneee:
Lord J. RUSSELL thought there was some value in the'
clause, being copied from that which was already the law.
A declaration by-parliament that such conduct was an
offence was of value. •
Mr. AGLIONBY saw no reason Ixday the same law
should not be applied to the voter who asked for, as well
as to the candidate who'rtiatte a'gift.
Mr. BALL coesidered that th age words would make the •
dance so stringent, that it would be entirely inoperative.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE observed that the same
punishment was awarded for asking for as for receiving.
After a few words from Mr. IaEWDEGATE, and Mr.
BOOZER, in support of the amendment,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought there was some
force in, the objection that the same punishment was
awarded far asking for as for rteLeiving, and therefore he
propof ed to leave out the words "ask for," and insert them
afterwards,lnd impeSe a lighter penalty for the offence.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
On clause 3,
-
Lord R. GROSVENOR moved an amendment-rendering
it illegal fur weendidate to pay the'expenses of the convey-
ance of voters.
Mr. LIDDELL hoped the committee would not consent
to this amendment. It- would have the effect of disfren-
chising nearly.the whole of the voters in the outlying die,
tricts in eoPeties. -
Mr. GOULBURN did not think this a proper place to
inttoduce this amendment. • In a former part of the bill
th 7 had legislated against bribery in candidates. This

A ”.:Sever.Might be the merits of the ploposerw (="Finn' -•
tent, at all events it ought not to be inserted in the clause
now before the committee.
Mr. B. DENISON remarked that a proposal of this kind
would effectati.lly Allifranchise a great portion of every
county, because every one know that unless voters were.
brought up at the expense of some
would not vote. Marty or another they.
'Lord R. GROSVENOR then withdrew the amendment,
but, announced his intention of taking an opportunity to
raise the question hereafter.
Clause 3 was then agreed to.
On, clause 4.
\- ..
Sir J. PAKINGTON. slid he hoped they might have
some explanation as to whether the extreme severity of
this clause was necessary. He might be told that the
ITEa I‘.."'
clause only threw together a number of enactments now
in force, but that explanation was not satisfactory. The
clause en toted that "any candidate who shall—by himself
or any-other person, at any-time, before, during, or after,
any election, provide any meat., drink, or entertainment,
in order to be elected, or for being elected, or for the par- •
pose of corruptly influencing any person." lie asked if ,
these words would not exclude the ordinary hospitality
that might be exercised by any member of Parliament.
'lt seemed tolim that if any member had a private dinner
party at which any person who might be his personal friend,
and who acted as his agent in the election was present he
would he liable to a penalty of 50/.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL ' said that he did not
think an innocent entertainment such as that given by a
candidate to his agents or canvassers would be considered •
by any jury as coming fairly within the meaning of this.
clause.

Sir J. PAKINGTON thought that the words of the
clause as they stood would be clearly liable to such a con-
struction and thought that the words should be omitted.
Mr. WALPOLE considered it unadvisable in any conso.
lidation of the law to omit any words likely to meet the
offence of treating, which of all others it was most desirable
to pia down.
Mr. B. DENISON wished to know from the Attorney-
General whether, under this clause, it would be illegal to
give refreshment, tickets to voters ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the practice
of committees differed very much as to what they consi-
dered treating. His own opinion was, however, that such
tickets would be clearly illegal, and he had no doubt what
over that a court of law would so decide it.
Mr. B. DENISON thought it highly important that the
committee should clearly understand whether or not the
clause would have the effect of making refreshment tickets
illegal. If it did so, it was his opinion that one-half at least
of the electors would be practically disfranchised, for great
numbers of the poorer voters would never come to the poll
unless their expenses were paid.
Mr. STANHOPE concurred in the opinion of the injuri-
ous effect of withholding these refreshment tickets from the
poorer class of voters, and gave notice that et a future stage
he should move to add a clause giving power to the return-
ing officer to give tickets for refreshments not exceeding in
value 25., upon the application of the voter, • and at the
joint expense of the candidates.

Lord it. GROSVENOR disapproved of the proposal to
give refreshments, and thought that if additional polling
places were provided there would be no difficulty in get-
ting the electors to vote.
Mr. HEADLAM believed that the clause, as it then
stood, would tend to make the law more uncertain than
it was at present, and suggested its reconsideration.
Mr. E. DENISON could not conceive why, if a candi-
date giving a good dinner to his agents and canvassers was
to be c,,nstrued merely as hospitality, a refreshment ticket
given to a poor voter' who had travelled many miles to
record his vote, should be considered as corruption. (Hear.)
As there appeared to be such grave doubts on the subject,
he thought it advisable that the clause should not be
further proceeded with at present.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND observed that in legislating upon
bribery there wore three questions to be dealt with,
namely, agency, travelling expenses, and refreshments.
According to the .opinion of the legal authorities in the
lionse, they had disposed of the first, by substituting& boa
law for a good law; in fact, it would almost seem that
they had made the good law bad, simply because country
gentlemen could not understand the good law. (A laugh.)
They were going now to deal with the questions of tra-
velling expenses and refreshments. The former they left
just where it was, and that being so, he wanted to know
how bribery could be stopped. Next came the question
.of refreshments, and here it appeared they were going
to make it legal to the extent of two shillings ; but
let them make the amount as low as they pleased, the
evil would still remain, because it was through these
refreshments that the bribery was carried on. (No, no.)
Well, he admitted there was occasionally a common, low,
vulgar, stupid fellow into whose hand they put a guinea or
so—(a laugh)—but that was the exception, not the rule.
(Hear, hear.) Depend upon it, bribery could only bo car-
ried on by these three means, and unless they were removed
legi.lition would be a mere farce and waste of time.
Mr. AP IE It thought they were bound to define more
explicitly what, tronting was, and he hoped the clause would
be postponed for that purpose.
Lord R. GROSVENOR saw no necessity Ivhate7r for

postponing the clause, as it simply consol'daed the existing
!ay.- of t; eating. There could be no doubt that refreshments
we:o illeft], and the only reason wily they had not been
declared so by committees was because when a contest took
place at. county elections it was agreed on both rides that
refreshments should be distributed to the electors. (clear.)

Sir J. PAKINGTON did not think they oughts !f to
rss
this bill without first settling these two q
he thought the best plan would bo to make
yelling expenses and refreshments, but atteb
of a separate bill. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with the
e
leafned member for Midhurst as tostneg acts. The act ofepdiency of keep-
ingright hon. and
eetsmi ti
ei
ot
shnaer as
ue btji emc et
in the bill the words of the existing
to the
übeingch
This
as
aorvoinew ersoeshilling,Pinasmn
elected. provision would include all treating, whether
William had for its object the prevention of treating after
the amount were tato shillings
the issue of the writ
with
that treating would not be given except for the purpose of
the candidate being elected. The words which he (Lord J.
Russell) introduced in the 3d and 4th Viet., c. 102, were,
“ before, after, or during the election," and also.the words
for the purpose of corruptly influencing the voter in giving,
or refraining from giving, his vote. But the voter would
not be influenced in'giving his vote in most cases where
both parties at an election gave refreshment tickets. It,
might happen, however, that one party gave very
moderate refreshments, while another might adopt a more
extravagant kind of treating, and give wine or beer to an
immense extent, making the electors drunk, and by that. moans carrying his election. That would no doubt be a
corrupt, influencing of the voter. It appeared to him, be-
sides, that the words showed that something more-than
mere corrupt treating to influence a voter was meant; The
words were in the disjunctive ; the most moderate treating,
which could not possibly affect the election, would be an
offence within the act. The question of treating was now
before the house in the clause, and he thought it ought tobe
decided one way or the other. There was a good deal to be
said on both sides of the question; it was perhaps right enough
to give some moderate refreshment to voters coming from a
distance, but he thought that it opened a door to corrupt
expenditure. It was better to do away with it altogether.
Surely a voter would rather ga without his dinner.than not
vote for his favourite candidate ; if ho did, he most pro-
bably would find some friend to give him a bit of bread and
cheese. (Laughter.) The clause as it stood forbade treat-
ing altogether, and if any words were required to' make it
more clear ho would be prepared to insert thorn.
Sir T. D. ACLAND would support the amendment:.. _
Lord LOVAINE said the noble lord the member w_!:
Middlesex had used the, strongest argument in favour of
allowing moderate treating when ho stated that both. aides
mmon'and
were now obliged to adopt it by arrangement;
much bettor for the committee to legalisoee,oo: by
necessary a practice than attempt to put it d a legis-
lation, which would be ineffectual. , -
ho put down the
Mr. FOX thought it would be very oatY
they would have the
it mroultt be
practice by act of Parliament, bacon
-ore anxious to have a stop put
interest iu the gustier, and vi
hearty concurrence of the working
all violence and classes,
de-
as.e
talktoo
fo took
hae ddete:
to what was she ofcommeneement
would not vote unless they were
franchisement of those whoot
even then unless they had the
dragged to the poll, and
drink.no
The majority of the wosleing
question of bribery to turn on this
ntbote,3oo of them who would not willingly
bauchery at elections. It was ridiculous to
prospect of meat and
work to give his vote. Treating
was the
sacrifice a day's .
f corruption, and ought to be the first at-
siinplest form o
point s;
considered
ewrae ds
tacked.
Mr. HILDYARD said the proposed change would seri-
ously it any person might
bring a
anfr eaccttti ohne ac og
'al inntsyt inthem e
forrs. e vßeyry refreshment ticket
they issued, and the agreetnent between the -candidates
would be no protection. They would have every attorney
in the county on their back, and they would soon disappear
from the house, like the railway speculators.
Mr. AGLIONBY reminded the house that the measure
to legalise the iFsuing of tickets had been rejected a session
or two ago. There was great difficulty in drawing the line
between innocent and corrupt treating in a borough with
a county district attached to it: The candidate was usually
, accompanied by one or two gentlemen to point out the