The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-13 00:00:00

c
~/ , \

[PRICE SD.

cumstance, for he could not but think that treating was
one of the very first causes of corruption, and that it
might be made not only as mischievous, but possibly
more demoralising, than bribery. He begged leave,
however, to remind his right honourable and learned
friend of this—that in the hill, as introduced by the
noble lord the member of the city of London last year,
treating was included among corrupt practices. It was
struck out, however, in another place ; and the bill
came back to the House of Commons shorn of that pro-
vision. But he rejoiced to hear that his right honour-
able and learned friend was impressed with the notion
that treating ought to be within the scope of the com-
missioners' inquiries ; and he hoped when he introduced
his bill on the subject of bribery, treating, and intiinida-
tian—an announcement which he (the Attorney-Gene-
ral) was sure would be received IN ith satisfaction—he
would remedy the defect in the existing law, in order
that there might ba no difficulty in future. (Hear.).
Mr. BRIGHT was afraid the house made rather a
ridiculous figure in respect to the provisions of the
present act. He begged the house to remember that
it was only passed last year, and that the noble lord
the member for London promised that it should be an
amendment upon the previous state of the law. But
when the bill came down from the other place, where
many measures were altered, but very few amended, he
perceived at once that it was so, changed as to be al-
most altogether nugatory ; and here, the first time
they attempted to put it into force, they found it
to be so defective, that the particular kind of corrup.
tion which was most commonly practised, and which was
was notorious and most destructive to electoral purity,
was absolutely excluded from the operation of the act.
(Hear, hear.) The whole system of treating was really
a system of bribery in the very worst form, for it cor-
rupted two persons in respect to one vote. The manner
in which it was done, so far as his experience went, he
could easily state. (A laugh.) Personally, as a candi-
date, he had no knowledge of it ; but he happened to
live in a town in which, at one time, though now he be-
lieved it to be as pure a borough as any in Englind, at
an election fifteen years ago, this system of corruption
prevailed to a large extent. For several weeks before the
election means were taken by one of the political parties
to bribe the publicans and beer-shop keepers, and
through this means to influence both voters and non-
electors. Sums of money were said to have been, and
he had no doubt were, given to the public-house and
beer-shop keepers-21. in one case, 51. in another, and
10/. in another—for the purpose of free drink being given
to anybody who chose to take it, especially electors.
Under the present act these publicans and beer-shop
keepers could not be charged with being bribed. The
beer was purchased from them, but the transaction was
a bribe, while the distribution would come under the
head of treating. This treating would be excluded from
the operation of the present act ; and if that were so
nine-tenths of all the corruption at the late election
would be excluded. Still, if the house was willing to
adopt a liberal and just construction of its own act, and
to give some latitude to the freedom of the commission-
ers they might arrive at a different conclusion from that
of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole).
He (Mr. Bright) conceived that the words " the manner
in which the election had been conducted" in the begin-
ning of the clause, and the words "and all other things
whereby, in the opinion of the commissioners, the truth
may be better known touching the premises," afforded
the necessary latitude. He was glad, however, that the
right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) proposed
to consolidate and amend the laws relating to this sub-
ject. The law ought to be made as simple as possible
but he contended that the only remedy for the evils of
the existing system was that provided by the method of
taking the votes by ballot. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WORTLEY was unwilling hastily to acquiesce
in the opinion that no case of treating could be brought
within the operation of the act, because a general power
was given to issue a commission in all cases where ex-
tensive corruption prevailed. Treating might amount
to absolute bribery. He understood that in the present
case there was treating for the purpose of influencing
the votes of electors. Now, if the money was spent at
the publicans, though in the shape of treating, for the
pupose of obtaining votes, it was very doubtful whether
this did not amount, in law, to a " valuable considera-
tion." There was no more reprehensible mode of bribery
or corruption than that which consisted in opening
public-houses for the purpose of securing voters. It
would be a strong measure to disfranchise publicans,
and he did not say he should go to such a length, but
there was a necessity for some measure to repress such
evils. It did not, as he said, appear quite so clear that
treating did not come within the act ; but after the
doubts expressed by those for whose opinion he enter-
tained great respect, he was disposed to think that the
commission should not issue in this case. But he hoped
that his right honourable friend opposite would bring in
his bill, and that the law would be put in a satisfactory
state.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in explanation, said
he should be sorry if it went forth that he was of opinion
that treating might not be one form of bribery. Treat-
ing, if applied in the mode suggested, might be as clearly
bribery as a gift of money ; but he did not understand
the report in this case to say that treating was resorted
to with the view of bribing the publicans.

.... .
S:r FITZROY KELLY concurred in opinion that
treating was a species-of corruption _pot-reaeled—by tlie.
act ~of Parliament. He might, indeed, add that Le
thought, if the right honourable gentleman opposite
(Mr. S. Wortley) had carefully read the act, he too
would have agreed with the right honourable the
Attorney-General and his right hon. friend the member
for Midhurst, that this was not a case in which it was com-
petent for the house, within the conditions of that act, to
address the Crown. He took this opportunity, as more
than one question had arisen in that house, and neces-
sarily in the other house of Parliament, of earnestly im-
pressing on those hon. members who constituted election
committees the importance of adopting the very words
of the act of Parliament, if they really saw a case which,
in their judgment, required further investigation by com-
mission under an address to the Crown. There were
many reasons, but one was quite decisive on this point.
Although it was not regular to allude to discussions else-
where, it was now notorious that two of the most learned
judges that had ever sat upon the bench entertained one
opinion, and two other learned and eminent judges, one
of them at the head of the administration of the law,
entertained a directly opposite opinion on this question.
Therefore, it was clear doubts existed which were en-
titled to the most serious consideration, and the reason
why it was essential the words of the act should be
adopted by committees was to prevent those doubts
arising; for, however the effect of the committee's report
might be sufficient to address the Crown, if in the pro-
ceedings which took place oaths were given, oaths were
taken, perjury was committed, and an indictment for
perjury followed, no authority in the other house of
Parliament, should the precise words be necessary, would
prevent the acquittal of the persons so indicted, and the
total defeat of the ends of justice. (Hear.) Having
offered that recommendation, he could not sit down
without alluding to what had fallen from his right
honourable friend the member for Midhurst. It was
with much pleasure that he heard his right honourable
friend indicate his intention to bring this great and im-
portant question under the consideration of the house.
He took leave to say he was somewhat disappointed at
not having heard any intimation from the Government
that they were prepared, without reference to the nu-
merous reports of committees, and the possible reports
of commissions, to bring forward some great and sub-
stantial measure on this subject. He should rejoice, in
common with others, if further means were devised to
investigate and check bribery, and those corrupt prac-
tices which formed the greatest blot on the fair page of
the constitution. (Hear, hear.) He was one of those
who thought they had enough information to enable the
house satisfactorily to legislate on this subject, and he
could only say, looking at the continuation of those
practices, although most anxious that the course should
be adopted by her Majesty's Government, that unless
within a very short time indeed—unless at some time
which would give a fair hope of carrying some full and
satisfactory measure through both houses during the
present session—her Majesty's Government should in-
timate their intention to bring forward a bill, he should,
with such assistance as he might be able to procure,
take an early opportunity of moving for leave to bring
in a general, and he hoped a comprehensive and satis-
factory, measure on this subject. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUTT hoped the house would not, by any logi-
cal license, defeat the ends of justice and the great object
of all their legislation. After some experience in matters
of election petitions, he could not recall an instance is
which an election was carried by practices of
.a more
character than those which illegal and improper
(Hear, hear.) His right hon.
dis-
graced the proceedings of the lasftrieelnecdtiothnefomr
member for
was reported to the house.
Midhurst' had remarked that only one
wcaasseuonfqubersitbioerny.
that
experience in election committees,d.
ably true, but the right hon.gent_lwemoualnd, after
recollect s o t
muchhat,
more than one gross and . it
tcawsaes unlikely
would be
from the nature of the procepealpinagbsie
fur-
nished to the house. The parties who prosecuted these
•
petitions were not likely to spend large sums of money
in carrying out a protracted inquiry, after their own
purposes had been served, and which could only give
satisfaction to the public. (Hear, hear.) The case re-
ported was a very remarkable one, and it came out that
the practice of offering to give and receive bribes in
exchange for votes was in constant and continual opera-
tion in the borougl! of Clitheroe. But that was not the
only act of corruption which marked the proceedings at
this election. Treatng of a most extensive character
prevailed, and it was found by the evidence that in one
gtillite
ucanndderidtabtee.
colgfnmcteieceosfofthtehahtouchsea,rawcetreer
house as many as 2,000 persons were entertained at the
ewxhPeenn stilr oouf
not to be followed by further proceedings, he confessed
he thought they might as well legalise the putting up to
public auction the representation of the people in the
several boroughs of England. (Hear.) He was quite
sure by such a proceeding they would as well sustain
the honour, the influence, and the reputation of the
house and tliol"rnorality of the electors, as by giving an
absolving protection to the system which prevailed in
the borough of Clitheroe.
Mr. HINDLEY believed the whole house would
unite in condeming the proceedings at this election ;
but the question was whether the act of Parliament con-
-, fined the house to bribery, or extensive bribery, in