The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 4, 1854.

had as much objection to it as any person ; but, after
being twenty-six years in that house, he had yet to learn
what bribery was. The noble lord attempted ;to define i
it in his hill ; but he (tliti; ailonel) could not subscribe I
to his definition. (Laughter;) What he defined as
bribery was practised almost every day by those who
had the honour of sitting on the treasury bench. (A.
laugh.) It appeared that the noble lord—the pure lord
—the spotless minister of the crown—had chosen to give
an appointment to Mr. Stonor, after he had been con-
victed of bribery. (Hear.) There was purity for you !
(Great laughter.) He had read all these bills, but could
not approve of them, and should oppose the house going
into committee on them. He thought, now that we were
engaged in war, that such a subject ought to be allowed
to drop. He found that the noble lord's two bills had
not been introduced until a week after Mr. Walpole's,
and yet the former were to he considered first. What
was the meaning of this ? Was there an understanding
between the whig and tory benches ? (Liughter.) He
should move the further postponement of the bill till
that day six months.
The SPEAKER said the hon. and gallant member
could not move that amendment now.
Mr. PIIINN regretted that the noble lord had not
consented to refer the bill to a select committee The
noble lord proposed to repeal no less than 10 statutes,
incorporating many of their provisions into different
sect'ons of this bill ; and the mode in which this was
done required the most careful consideration. The
committee on the Dungarvan election put a construc-
tion on the Treating Act which was much more stringent
than that usually put upon it by election committees.
It was, in fact, almost impossible to reconcile the con-
flicting decisions of committees on that subject. (Hear,
hear.) He did not agree with the noble lord (Lord J.
Russell) that the reference of the bill to a select com-
mittee would cause its postponement to the next ses-
sion. Al fortnight would suffice to get through it, and
he saw no reason why it should not be ready to be
submitted to the Lords by the middle of May.
Mr. F. PIGOTT opposed the amendment.
Mr. I. BUTT should vote for the amendment if it
were pressed to a division. The noble lord said if the
bill were referred to a select committee it must be post-
poned till next year. Even if that were the case, the
question was whether it was better to have a bad bill
this session or a good one next. (Hear, hear.) Hasty
legislation was not likely to be at all effectual.
Mr. NAPIER thought the sooner the house got into
the subject the better. He should himself have pre-
ferred a select committee, but if the noble lord was op-
p ised to it he should not vote against him.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wa- convinced that if the
house g..it into coimuittee it would never get out of it.
(Lauguter.) So many intricate questions were in-
volved that there would be a perfect war of words. He
wished to know what was meant by the provision as to
having received or asked for, directly or indirectly,
place, office, or employment. Wnether or not any Go-
vernment could exist is this country without the exer-
cise of patronage, he could nut pretend to determine ;
but it became toe house to beware iu what position they
placed electors.
Mr. CROSSLEY was in favour of at once going into
committee, not because he thought the bill would prove
effectual, bat because he wished she Government to learn
that they must, after all, come to the ballot. (Hear.)
Mr. PACKE supported the amendment. He would
suggest to the noble lord to consider whether, during the
hours of polling a restriction might not usefully be placed
on the sale of intoxicating liquors.
Lord HOTIIAM said it appeared to him that, with
tile ex !epti ni of toe noble lord tii,nAdlf, who held no
office, the whole of the members of the Government
would come under the charge of bribery as defined in
the bill. It was notorious that nine out of ten of the
public offices were distributed fur political purposes. Toe
whole subject was ,o•c,ainplicate.l, that there could be
no satisfactory legislation upon it without a select
committee.
The house then divided—

prosecutions would be subject to the control of the At-
torney-General.
Mr, G. BUTT opposed the proviso.
Mr. P [JINN observed that in all cases the costs were
at the discretion of the court, and if it saw that the pro-
secution was improperly instituted it would not allow the
costs.
Lord R. GROSVENOR asked if it was intended to
prevent candidates being charged with travelling ex-
penses, which were frequently made the means of bri-
bery.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not propose to make
any alteration in that respect in this bill.
Clause 5 was then agreed to.
On clause 6,

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.—April a

OLD COURT.

The April sittings of this court commenced this Morn";
ing, before the Recorder, the Right Hon. the Lord
Mayor, Mr. Alderman Kelly, Mr. Alderman Farneomb,
Aldermen Carden and Salomons. The calendar contains
the names of 147 prisoners, one of whom stands charged
with murder, one for manslaughter, three for cutting
and wounding, one for feloniously shootinz with intent
to murder, and no fewer than 47 for passing bad coin,
and three for coining.
The Grand Jury having been sworn,
The Recorder said, it was with much regret he saw
that the calendar before him was a very heavy one,
heavier in point of numbers than any that he had ever
had before him, but, still he was glad to find that the
crimes charged were not so very heavy. Although there
were some cases of cutting and wounding, he was glad
to find that the crime of violence to the person was di-
minishing, a circumstance he attributed to the spread of
education. With re.rard to the case of murder, there
could be no doubt that the unfortunate woman met
her death by the act of the prisoner, and although
a question might arise as to the state of the pri-
soner's mind, their duty would be to find the bill,
and leave the petty jury to decide that issue.
All the cases in the calendar had been investigated by
the magistrates, but doubtless some bills would he
brought before them that had not passed that or-
deal, and those bills they should look upon with jea-
lousy, as, generally speaking. the course was an objec-
tionable one. Still he did not say but that in some in-
stances it was a proper one. Another case which he
would draw their attention to was, that of a person
who, charged with embezzlement, had fired a pistol at the
prosecutor, and the act was attributed to an accident ;
that would also be a question for them to leave to the
petty jury. He now came to a case of which they (the
grand jury) had doubtless heard through the press,
which was th t of two persons named Harrison and
Desaux, which would come before them as a charg- of
conspiracy, with others not in custot'y, to obtein the
prostitution of a Belgian girl. The only difficulty that
arose in the case was, that part of the transaction took
place in Belgium and part in France, for which parts
they could not be charged in this indictment ; but if they
conspired in this country to commit any part of the
offence, that was an offence at common law. He did not
know of any case in point, but-it was certain that the
act known as the Bishop of Oxford's would meet the
case, and said, that he should recommend them to
fled the bill, and leave any point of law to be dis-
cussed in court. He thought it likely that duri► g the
session there would be another bill preferred. fur an
asault an l false iinprisonment arising out of the same

Me. WALPOLE said clause 5 dealt with persons who
offered bribes, and clause 6 related to persons who re-
ceived bribes. By this clause they made a person guilty
of bribery who asked for any place on account of having
voted for any particular candidate. Suppose a person
who voted for the noble lord (Lord John Russell), and
within a year after he asked for place which he was
perfectly competent to fill, was he to be deemed guilty of
bribery?
Col. SIBTHORP said a wink was as good. (Laughter.)
The whole of this bill was nothing more nor less than an
attempt to undermine the fair and legitimate right of
those who possessed the property—he meant the aris-
tocracy.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said his present im-
pression was that the words "ask for" bad better be left
out. (Hear, and laughter.) It would be necessary to
make this ense and the counterpart of clause 5 corre-
spond. He would therefore take it into consideration
previous to the re-committal of the bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the clause would have very
little operation, as it would be difficult to prove a case
so as to bring about a conviction.
Mr. HILDYARD said it was absurd to inert such a
clause. When Lord Derby took office, he (Mr. Hild-
yard) had many applications from his constituents for
places ; and when Lord Derby left office those applica-
tions ceased. Was the noble lord about to declare that
the practice which had heretofore prevailed should cease
to exist ?
Mr. MALINS also opposed the clause on similar
grounds.
Colonel SIBTHORP said that during the six and
twenty years he had been in the house he had never
asked a favour of any Government. At the same time
he had always been courteously treated by both Whigs
arid Tories, and lie attributed that to the straightforward
course he had always pursued.
Lord J. RUSSELL s Lid the obj,ct of this hill was to
consolidate and amend the law relating t ► bribery.
fin t, gentlemen, however, spoke as if he were intro-
ducing for the first time a clause against persons receiv-
ing a bribe in the shape either of moiety or employ-
ment ; but they entirely forgot that there were already
upon the statute book laws fur that purpose ; and what
he proposed to do chiefly by this clause was to reduce
the penalty imposed by the act of George IL from 5001.
to 50/. There was no doubt whatever that there were
some words in the clause that went beyond the existing
law, and his hot,. and learned friend pr. p rased to recon-
sider it with the view of making an alteration in its
phraseology, though without any alteration it would
not apply to the case which had been put by the hon.
and learned member for Cockermouth. _ _

transaction. There was also another case which was
one of the most paramount importance to the adaiinis-
tration of justice in these.courts. It was one where two
men, named Jones anCPull, had obtaine,l, by an order
at the Middlesex Sessions, the sum of 2/. 55., alleging
that-they had been engaged to prosecute a man charged
by Mr. E. Smith, the lessee of Drury-lane Theatre, with
robber). The man had, it appeared, pleaded guilty,
and ?Jr. Smith had never employed the prisoners to con-
duct the prosecution It was by this fraud they had
imposed upon Mr. Serjeant Adams, a gentleman not
generally easy to deceive.
The grand jury then retired.
Mr. Clarkson applied to the court upon the part of
the Bank of England, to withdraw from the prosecution
against the wife of the late Frederick D 4 Molyns, who
stood charged with having uttered a forged power of
attorney for the transfer of stock. De Molyns had since
died in Newgate, and it was clear that the wife had
acted under his directions.

Mr. DISRAELI said the bill not only consolidated,
but it also amended and extended the law in a very ma-
terial
particular. The great fault of these consolidathtn
bills was that they consolidated that which often ought
to be repealed. The clause as it now stood was mon-
strous
in its provisions, but it appeared to him that if
they were to leave out the last two lines many of the
obj:ictions would be got rid of.
Sir W. CLAY suggested that the best way to pre-
vent these cases was to extend the constituencies. Most
of the applications for places came from small con-
stituencies.
Mr. WALPOLE would answer the suggestion by
reading a few words from a return which had jest been
laid on the table. It was a return of the boroughs con-
victed of corrupt practices between 1833 and 1853, and
the total number was 76 ; of those, being boroughs in
England and Wales, 12 had a constituency of less than
500 ; there were many between 500 and 1.000, while
there were 22 places where the c instituency was more
than 1,000. In 1850 it was found that the majority of
the bribery cases applied to large towns, the worst of
which were places like Hull and Liverpool.
Sir W. CLAY had said nothing about bribery, he had
simply referred to applications ior places, but even in
these large towns the bribery was confined to freemen.
Mr. BOOKER viewed this bill as a thorough piece of
humbug, but as it was intended to revolutionise the
system of Government patronage, he would'propose that
the further consideration of the bill should be postponed
to a more fitting opportunity. It was ridiculous to sup-
pos3 that the Government would ever d stribute their
patronage amongst other than friends aul supporters.
After a remark from Mr. V. SCULLY,
Mr. BOOKER moved that the chairman do report
progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that it appeared to him
that the hon. member *as favourable to bribery. How-
ever, all that the committee was now required to do was
to pass the clause, with a view to its being altered, and
the bill afterwards re-committed.
Mr. DISRAELI saw no objection to that course.
Mr. BOOKER assure,' the noble lord that he wag as
much opposed to bribery as any man, but he decidedly
objected to imposing pains and penalties upon the poor
constituency, when in nine cases out of ten the member
was the really offending party. He withdrew the amend-
ment.

The Recorder said they had better not go before the
grand jury with the bill.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS-April 3.

Fur going into committee 146
For the aliendinent
The house then went into committee, and clauses 1 to
4 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 5,
Mr. WALI'OLE said he thought the words of the
clause made the offence of bribery too extensive, treating
as bribery what was not so in fact. If any person gave
valuable camideration .to a voter who wag "about to
vote," though it might opt be in order to induce him to
vote, the traosaxtion was treated as bribery. A. person
who was about to vote might have a place given to him
without any corrupt intention. The words which he
would suggest, instead of those used, were, " with the
intent to induce any voter to vote, or to refrain from
voting, at any election." He would also suggest that the
5 and 6 Vic., c. 102, with regard to head money, should
be inserted. He thought, too, that there should be a
provision with regard to kindred or affinity. He men•
tinned this because last year a case came before an elec-
tion committee in which a father, who was not himself
a voter, was led to persuade his son to vote in a par-
ticular mariner for his own advantage.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the words "about
to vote" sufficiently conveyed the object for which the
place was given. With regard to head money, that
was provided for in a subsequent part of the bill. With
regard to the third point, he thought it better that the
words "kindred or affinity" should not be introduced,
because the voter might be influenced by a person who
was no relation receiving a bribe.
Mr. V. SMITH wished to know the meaning of the
words "any person authorised to act as agent." The
case of agency was one of the greatest difficulties they
had to contend against. It was, therefore essential
that it should be defined.

The April general quarter sessions of the peace for the
county of Middlesex commenced this morning at Clerken-
well, there being 94 prisoners for trial.
The Assistant Judge, in addressing the grand jury,
said that during the last 12 months 2,500 bills had been
sent to this court, 75 of which were ignored through the
non-appearance of prosecutors. In six of the cases there
had been a full confession of guilt by the prisoners, and
in others women who had been bound over to prosecute
their husbands for assaulting them had denied before
the grand jury that they had ever been beaten at all,
their object being to save tiivir husbands from the con-
sequences of a trial. Atter some general observations on
the cases that would come before them he dismissed them
to their duties.

THE ATTEMPTED FRAUD ON THE LESSEE OF DRURY-
LANE THEATRE. -

Henry Joseph Perry, convicted last session, was brought
up to receive judgment. .He was convicted of steal►ng
half of a 101. note from,the offices of the Wesleyan Re
form Association, at Exeter Hall, and was given into
custody in consequence of having attempted to obtain
some money upon it from Mr. E. T. Smith, the lessee of
Drury-lane Theatre, representing that he had been sent
by his father, Mr. Flexrnore, the clown.
The Assistant Judge said he considered the best course
he could take would be to sentence the prisoner to a
long terra of imprisonment, with a view of being ad-
mitted into the Philanthropic Society's S,•huol at Red-
hill.

The prisoner was sentenced to two years' hard lahrmr.
George Cooper, 14, pleade,i guilty to a charge of having
stolen a handkerchief from the person of Abraham S.tq ut.
Some observations were made by the AsAst ‘nt Judge
with reference to this prisoner haying, while in the
House of Detention on the charge of pocket Ticking,
committed an act of wilful damage for the purpose, as
he afterwards informed the visiting justices, of getting
a long term of imprisonment, so that he might be
tatrilit to read and write. This was a case, he said,
which showed the 'necessity for something to be done
in the way of instruction for these unhappy juvenilo
delinquents, and he trusted that though all thought
was directed to war, they would not stop in their
career. which had been rapid and promising of late, of
improving the present system. He should sentence the
prisoner to two years' hard labour, with a special re-
commendation for his being sent to Redhill.
Sentence accordingly.

Mr. V. SMITH asked what was the alteration pro-
posed to be made in the clause ?
Lord J. RUSSELL intended to introduce the words
"in consideration of," suggested ny an hon. and learned
member, so as to keep the clause within the bounds of
the existing law.
Lord C. HAMILTON sugge.ted that as such great
alterations and modifications were to be made in the
clause it had better be postponed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had had a good deal of
experience in passing bills through that house, and he
had found it the best course to have a discussion in com-
mittee on the clauses, but not to weigh every word so
as to fix them, and then to recommit the bill. He had
passed the Tithe Commutation Bill, and the Municipal
Corporations Bill.
After some conversation in which Mr. I. Burr ob-
jected to clauses being thrown on the table one after the
other merely to be postponed, and Mr. WARNER sug-
gested that the Government should reconsider their de-
termination and let the bill go to a select Committee,
Mr. BOOKER said he bo.ped the noble lord would
not press tce clause, or he must move that the chairman
report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed to the postponement, and
the house resumed. _ _

Sir F. KELLY apprehended the words were not in•
tended to include any case of agency except that of
agency directly authorised by the candidate. fie would
suggest, therefore, in order to render the clause more
clear, that the words "by him" (the candidate) should
be inserted before the word " authorised."
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said this being a penal
clause, it was not intended to apply to the case of con-
structive agency, which had been the subject of great
anxiety and some opprobrium. The agent here in-
tended was the person directly authorised by the candi-
date to commit the act prohibited, arid though that was
necessarily implied by the words of the clause, no doubt
the words suggested by the hon. and learned gentleman
would make the cause more clear. Tine object of the
clause was to strike at an offence characterised by a
males aeimus.

Mr. G. BUTT thought that the addition of the words
suggested by his hon. and learned friend would be ne-
cessary. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL signified that he had no objec-
tion to their insertion. '
Colonel SIBTLIORP said this bill struck at the free-
men of England, who were more pure than the members
of the Treasury bench themselves. (Laughter.) He
would wash his hands out of the bill for the present, but
would oppose it in future stages.
Mr. PHINN suggested the words "employed by
him," which were the words used in the statute of
George 11.
Mr. I. BUTT thought it quite right that the agent
.1ire.:..e.1 t i conuuit snout(' be dee:ued guilty of a crbui-
niti offence ; but they stiluld be cautious that, in crea-
ting a criminal offence, they did not alter the whole-
soote 1 tw which subjected the member to loss of his seat
tor constructive agency.
The words proposed by Sir F. Kelly were then ordered
to be inserted. _ _

The Towns Improvement (Ireland) Bill went through
committee pro forma.
The Church Buildings Continuance Acts Bill as
amended was considered.

The Dublin Port Bill was read a second time.
MINISTERS' MONEY BILL.
This bill was read a third time, and after a clause
brought up by Mr. PAGAN had been added to it and
certain verbal amend►nents made, was passed.
The other orders of the day were disposed of, and
The house adjourned at 20 minutes past 12.

After a lug discussion, on some verbal objections
raised by Mr. WALPJLE, Mr. AIALINS, and Mr. I.
BUTT,
Lord J. RUSSELL promised to recommit the bill,
in order that an opportunity might be afforded the house
to reconsider the phraseology of this and other clauses,
after it had been finally settled by the Government. In
the meantime, the suggestions of the hon. and learned
gentlemen would meet with every attention, and would
in all probability be adopted.
Lord HON:UM thought the latter part of this sec-
tion would extend to cases not within the intention of
the framers of the measure. For instance, if a gentle-
man, wishing to get hie so n a seat in Parliament, were
to make a present—not in money—to a person who had
exerted himself in obtaining the son's return, that would
be an offence under this clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the introduction of
the word " corruptly" would obviate all difficulty.
Lord HOTHAII thought that, inasmuch as the in-
terpetration of this clause would have to be made by
committees of the house, the introduction of the word
"corruptly" would not get over the difficulty.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL reminded the com-
mittee that the clause under consideration was a penal
clause, imposing a penalty of 1001. Committees of that
house did not impose penalties or enforce penal statutes,
therefore the noble lord was not quite correct when he
said the interpretation of the measure would rest with
committees of the house. _ _ _ _

PARLIAMENTARY DI VISION.

HOUSE OF COAMONS—Arait 3.
BRIBERY, &c., BILL.

Order for committee read. Motion made, and question pro-
posed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word " That"
to the cud of the question, in order to add the words " the
bill be committed to a select committee"—(Mr. Vernon
Smith)—instead thereof :. Question put, " That the words
proposed to be left out stand part of the question. The
house divided—Ayes, 146 ; Noes, 76.

AYES-r 146.
A'Court, C. Goderieh, Vlsceunt. Patten, J.
Adderley. C. Goodman- Sir G. Peel, F.
Aglionby, IL Graham, Sir J. Pe!lett, A.
Aicock. T. Greenall. G. Pere v. 1.
Anderson, Sir J. Greene. Thomas Peto, S.
Bagshaw, J. Greville, Col F. Pigott, F.
Ba'nea. Rt. Bon. Id. Grosvenor, lA. R. Pil'tington, J.
Barnes, T. Hie:Meld. G. Pinney, ..sr,
Barrow, W. Hamilton, G. A. - Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Bass, T. Ilastie, Alex. Power, N.
Beamish, F. H auk, Archd. P ice, Sir R.
Bell. J. . Heard, J. Pugh, 1).
Bethel', Sir R. lien.'age' Goo, F. iti • ardo. J.
Riggs. W. Hervey, Lord' : hicar4o, 0.
Bland, L. R. He wood, J.. R chard,on. J.
Booth, Sir Rt. Gore Heyworticiz • . Robartes. T.
nouverte. lion. E. P. Hlll'lleY,,a. _ itu.seil; Lord J.
Brocklehurst. J. Ingham, R*: 4- Sawle. C.
lirotherton, J. Kelly: /Orr. . Soh I.:fteld, W.
Brown, W. Kersh tw, J. Elwood. Capt. G.
liruce, Lord E.. Knit drd. A. Scully, F.
Cardwell, E. Kirk, W. Scilly, V.
Caulfeild. 1.t.-Col. J. Lto n, Sir E. Shee, Serjt. W.
. I 'beethana. John Laini' S' Shelley, sir J.
C'holinoneeley Lord Lanuston..l. H. Smith, J. B.
Cobbett. J. 11. Lank ton. ti. G. Spooner, R
Cobden, R. Lan, ton, W. IL P. G. Starkle. Le G.
Crossley. F, Lee, W. Strut, E.
Deveretut, J. T. Lindsay, W. Sutton, J.
Dive t, E. Lowe, IL Tancrel. H.
Duncan, G. Luce, r.
.. Thicknesse, R.
Dundas, G. 'Mackie, d • Thompson, G.
Dunlop, A. id. .ano..r. Thoroely. T.
Elcho, I ord McTaggart. Sir J. Wa'cott, Admiral
i smonle, J. Massey. W. Walmsley, Sir J.
Fagan. W. Matheson, A. Walpole, S.
Feilden, M. Mall, E. whatm tn, J.
Fergus, J. . moligan, B. Wickham. FL W.
Ferguson, I. Mills, T. Wilkinson. W.
FlizGerald, J. Mo:isell, WWilliams,k .
Willia I
Fitzroy, Hon. H. Mowbray' iri Williams W.
1 itzeerald. Lt.G.Sir J. Moles worth, Sir W. Willcox. B.
Forster. J.
Fort, seue, C; ISt urrougli, J. Wynahatn, W
Wyvil, M.
Fox. W. lqa ner. J.
Musgrave, Earl Of Winnington, Sir T.
Young, Sir J.
French, F. Oakes, J.
Gardner. R. O'Brien, P.
(leach C. o'. 'onnell, J. MUM.
Glyn. G. 0 borne, R. Hayter. W.
Goddard, A. Paltrier, Bounden Beckeley, G.
NOES-76.
Alexander, J. Forbes. W.
Arbutnnoti, Lt. G. H. George, J.
Ark . right, G. Gooch. Sir
Lord H.
31.
Baird, J. Graham.
Ball. R. Cleaves, E.
Baring, Sir F. HenleY, 3.
Bateson, Capt T. Herbert. Sir T.
Bennet. Capt P. Hilyard, R. C.
Bent rick, G. Hmsfall, T.
Blackett, J. F. B. Witham, Lord
Si a' r, Co. J. H. Hume. W.
Buller, sir J. Irton. S.
Bunbury, Capt. W. Kennedy T.
Butt, 4, Kia ~ J.
Butt, I. Kyigmt, F.
Chelsea, Viscount I dabel,
Capt. R.
chthi, smith Lennox. Lord A. F.
Croik, J. Liddell, H. T.
Cll'dtt, W. Lockhart. A. E.
Di.raell, Ron. Be Lue&. F.
Dunne. Col. mang-e.tor, Ja.
East, Sir J. If acznire, J.
Egerton E. Id il , a. B.
Evelyn. W. Meagher, T. •
Ferguson, Sir IL - 11441, W.
FRU' raid. W. . . Aloatiromery, Et.

Lord LIOTHAM wished to know whether the gift of
offices and places by members of her Majesty's Govern-
ment would be bribery within this bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—Not unless corruptly
given.

Mr. HENLEY thought that the duties to be per•
f",nei by coalmen apace would briug thew within
the bill.

Mr: :It: PALMER said that the bill followed the
language of the statute of George 111., which had been
held not to include common agents.
Upon that part of the clause fixing the penalty at
1001, being real,
Mr. WALPOLE proposed to alter the amount to
501. The only effect of fixing the penalty high was to
wake the measure a dead letter.
Mr. MASSEY was for doing away with the penalty
altogether, and making bribery an offence at common
law. If an agent became liable under the present bill,
the candidate, feeling that he bad got the agent into the,
scrape, would be sure to pay the amount of the penalty,
and thus the system proposed in the bill would ineffect'
only swell the election. expenses.
The CHAIRMAN said it would be irregular to put
the amendment at the present time, but it might be pat
afterwards.
drawn,
After a short discussion the amendment was with-
Mr. PHINN asked the Solicitor General if he would
consent to a proviso giving costs to the prosecutor in
case of convintion. As the law at present stood, if a
periAt prosecuted for bribery be had to pay the costs,
whiie if he prosecuted for riot the costs were allowed. ,
The SOLICIFOR-GRNER,A.E. said the suggestion
was an exceedingly valuable one. The Attorney-General
was at present nut in the house, but he would consult
Jum upon it.
lk;r. HENLEY hoped the hon. gentleman would well
--eo&ider an this subject bet re. he made up his mind
upon it. It would hold out great temptations to vexa-
tious prosecutious, bet.tuse tile parties who carried on
the prosecutioms . would -do so with ;la risk to thew
saves, the public paying the costs. •
.P.24leA'oe.•wrirtA,vivior,4e4 tli4t
- - - - - - - - -

Naas, Lord
Pacts. C
Phlnn, T.
Bolt. P.
Sandars, G.
Seymour, Lord
Sibthorp, 01.
St-Juicy. Lord
Swi t, R.
Taylor, Lt.-Col, J.
Tomlin°, G.
Tyler, Slr G.
Van Lo,d
Vansittart,
Vernon, 0.
Warldindon,
Walsh, Sir J.
Whiteside, J.
Whitmore, H.
Willoughuy, Sir
So Ise. .1.
Wood& B.

TZLIJIS.

~9anttb, a._.
111044 ti W.