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

BRIBERY BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL 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 hon.
member for Suffolk, and others from the bill of the right
hon. and learned member for Midhurst. There was another
clause with respect to the election officer, which, although
its spirit was contained in the original bill, must yet be
ccosidered as a new clause. It was of great importance,
and in his opinion calculated to do much good. The Con-
troverted Elections Bill had been referred to the same
committee, but it was obviously too late to 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 notice which he had given
respecting it must necessarily fall to the ground.
Clause 1 was agreed to without discus.sion.
Clause 2, penal clause.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE suggested,tho 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 author isation 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 he 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 still fur they 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
propoied were inserted, a special authorisation in each
particular case of bribery would have to be proved. He
thought the clause stood perfectly well as it was.
Sir F. KELLEY agreed with his hou. and learned
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 introduced 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 be conferred upon an agent by whom
the criminal act was committed. If the committee should
be of opinion that any alteration of the clause 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. WALMSLEY, Lord SEYMOUR, and Mr. HENLtY
spoke in favour of altering the clause as suggested.
After a few words from Mr. PRINN and Mr. AGLIONBY,
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that under the old act of
Geo: IL—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 the amendment
would be not to make the law more efficient, but less so.

Mr. HILDYAB,D said 'the danger was.not that the
courts of law would convict without the authorisation of
the agent was proved—of that he had no fear, but that
the Election Committee of the House of Commons might
pronounce tho principal guilty of bribery on account of an
act committed by his agent, and of which he had no know-
ledge, and so not only deprive him of his seat, but dis-
qualify him from sitting. He thought it desirable that
some words should be inserted to remove all doubt as to
the 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 more 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 held 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 hd had any intention of
making the law for 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. HEADLAX 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 ameridment.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that he would formally move as
an amendment, that after' the word "person," the word
" authorised" be introduced, and he 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-
tiont was the punishing of bribery, and was a different
question question from the law on election committees, h
no power to punish.. If a person appointed anave
.1,11
aewhlfo,
bribed, though he might not be guilty of bribery himself,
if his election was carried by bribery
election ; but what they were now
dealing with
With
penalty to be inflicted on persons guilty
itl .wouldwithbewmaavtohide
regardseynae
Seymour)
o)
quoted er, i the d beenh i
g h
intob
a nobletaw a friendandde(aLounrgd
abvhouatt ah ad
personbee goingbeen
said.
answered by the Attorney-General,
with persons so as to compromhwishma
who,alf., when Chief Baron '
eh of ea mgAct of
the Tr t.
taeurtphroertietdy otfh Lord or d
words Lyndhurst,
“an
b
who was not
thereforend in the
authorised by a candidate,
'without his case
of
any
William the Third, not to includea any person
one acting on behalf of a candidate
such condidate would not be liable to a penalty,
h
Mr. W. WILLIAMS the* u proposed amendment
For the amendment ........................ 110
damage t bill. t the
would seriously
Againstit ....................................... 141 •
majority ............... ... ............ 31
-GupEN to
EvitotA vote at at
saidelections?
i t
did
Lord R. GROSVENOR inquired whether this clause
would put an end to the mischievous practice of paying the
farTehseofAvTotTercisßcoNmEiyng
not touch
that case ; as the law stood, if those fares were paid Colour-
ably, and as a cloak to bribery, they '
were ille,ral • but paid
bona fide, and amounting to only the ' '
real expenses, they
were legal.

Mr. AGLIONBY asked whether the words "give any
money" in the clause, included sums paid to an attorney
or recognised legal adviser 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.
On clause 3, which defines the offence of bribery,
Mr. HENLEY urged that the words " ask for" were
too stringent. It might make a man who asked for a shil-
ling to drink guilty of a misdemeanour.
Mr. PHINN said tho clause was intended as a protection
to the candidate who might be asked for any' place or gift,"
and who could at once answer that the mere asking for it
rendered a person 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.
• a, 4.t3INN paid at present any yagAlio4 ght sWQ"r