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
it in his bill ; but he (the Colonel) could not subscribe
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-
Tided of bribery. (Hear.) There was purity for you I
(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 be considered first. What
was the meaning.of this ? Was there an understanding
between the whig and gory benches? (Laughter.) He
should move the further postponement of the bill till
that day six months.
The SPEAKER said the hon. and gallant irember
could not move that amendment now.
Mr. 'MINN 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 etection 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-
flict►ng 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 e.►use its postponement to the next ses-
sion. A 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. PIGOTI' 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, bear.) Hasty
legislation was not likely to be at all effectual.
Mr. NAPIER thought the sooner the house got into
the subject the betthr. He should himself have pre-
ferred a select committee, but if the noble lord was op-
posed to it he should not vote against him.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY was convinced that if the
house got into committee it would never get out of it.
(Laughter.) 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 fur, directly or indirectly,
place, office, or employment. Whether or not any Go-
vernment could exist in this country without the exer-
cise of patronage, he could not pfetend to determine ;
but it became the house to beware in 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, but because he wished the 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 HOTHA.M said it appeared to him that, with
the exeepti ni of the noble lord himself, 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 for political purposes. The
whole subject was so complicated, that there could be
no satisfactory legislation upon it without a select
committee.
The house then divided—
Fur going into committee 146
For the amendment
The house then went into committee, and clauses 1 to
4 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 5,
Mr. WALPOLE 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 consideration to a voter who was "about to
vote," though it might not be in order to induce him to
vote, the transaction 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 Vie., 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 manner 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
wi,s 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
VMS no relation receiving a bribe.
Mr. V. snail 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.
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. He 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, and 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 clause more clear. Tue object of the
clause was to strike at an offence characterised by a
mains animus.
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 SIBTHORP 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. PIIINN suggested the words "employed by
him," which were the words used in the statute o
George

Mr. I. BUTT thought it quite right that the agent
directed to commit should ba deemed guilty of a crimi-
nal offence ; but they should be cautious that, in crea-
ting a criminal offence, they did not alter the whole-
some law which subjected the member to loss of his seat
for constructive agency.
The words proposed by Sir F. Kelly were then ordered
to be inserted.

After a long discussion, on some verbal objections
raised by Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. MALINS, 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 probahihty be adopted.
Lord Ron-Lin 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 his son 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 HOTHAXI 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 riot got over the difficulty.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL reminded the cora-
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.

Lord HOTHAM wished to know whether the gift of
offices and places by members of her h.laje4ty'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-
formed by
common agents would bring them within
the bill.
Mr. R. 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 read,
Mr. WALPOLE proposed to alter the amount to
50/. The only effect of fixing the penalty high was to
make 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 be had 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 in effect
only swell the election expenses.
The CHAIRNIAN said it would be irregular to put
the amendment at the present time, but it might be put
afterwards.
After a short discussion the amendment was with-
drawn.
Mr. PHINN asked the Solicitor General if he would
consent to a proviso
giving costs to the prosecutor in
case of conviction. As the law at present stood, if a
person prosecuted for bribery he had to pay the costs,
while if he prosecuted for riot the costs were allowed.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the suggestion
was an exceedingly valuable one. The Attorney-General
was at present not in the house, but he would consult
him upon it.
Mr. HENLEY hoped the hon. gentleman would well
consider on this subject I
before he made up his mind g
upon it. It would hold out great temptations to vexa-
tious prosecutions, because the parties who carried on
the prosecutions would do so with no risk to thew
selves, the public payin the costs.
T4t POLIOZOI44,EX4/4 NOW tit ail MI 1