The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-11 00:00:00

or two to offer. The one related to the question of bribery;
and he thought he understood the noble lord to say, that if
a sitting member was deprived of his seat in conse-
quence of bribery, by himself or agents, the candi-
date opposed to him, if he had two-thirds of the votes given
for the sitting member, was to have the seat. He doubted
whether that could be called an entirely constitutional pro-
posal, because he considered the fact of a sitting member
losing his seat for bribery was no proof whatever of a candi-
datufas opposed him having the majority of the votes of
thetilMors. He feared it would be extremely difficult
to say that because A had been unseated for bribery, B
therefore had a majority of the votes of the electors. But
he thought the greatest difficulty would be found in the
clause which attempted to define undue influence." Why,
they all knew that a look or a frown was sufficient to inti-
midate some voters. He contended it was utterly impos-
sible to define what was called "undue influence," and espe-
cially by a clause in an act of Parliament. He thought that
part of the bills would lead to litigation of a very disagree-
able character, and not to any very successful result. On
the question of undue influence or intimidation, he would
refer the house to the opinion of the right hon. gentleman
the member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay), who had laid
it down that it was impossible to find any statutory remedy
med 7:
for that evil, and that they could only hope to get ridof
by adopting the ballot. (Cheers.) He would also with
confidence refer the noble lord to the opinion on that sub-
ject of his right hon. colleague in the Cabinet, the member
for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth). He w
how-
ever, to find that they were this session to haveasglad, -
an effort
made to put down the offence of bribery. The hon. and
learned gentleman the member for East Suffolk, who re-
presented him (Mr. M. Gibson) in that house—(a_ laugh)—
since he had a residence in that county, had given notice
of his intention to bring forward a similar measure ; and,
with the great legal knowledge of the hon. and learned
member, he (Mr. M. Gibson) had nodbttdanhvehouse woaludt
proceed in this matter with considerable a
he had a very strong belief that the sole remedy for all the
three offences of bribery,
treating, and intimidation was
to be found in secret voting. (Hear.)
Sir F. KELLY thanked the noble lord for having taken
up the subject of bribery and corruption. He assured the
noble lord that he would receive every possible assistance
from his (Sir F. Kelly's) friends, to carry out a measure
calculated to put a stop to the evils described by the noble
lord. He agreed with him that the system of imposing
penalties had failed of its effect. What they ought to
do was to facilitate the means by which bribery could be
easily detected, and this would deter parties from being
guilty of it. He conceived it would be a most unconstitu-
tional matter to give to an election committee the power
of saying that persons who had only two-thirds of the
voters had been duly elected. (Hear, hear.) He heard
with great satisfaction the noble lord's statement of his in-
tention to give to the election committee assessors. It
would simplify the proceeding before such committee, and
give to their decisions that which did not attach to them
—uniformity. (Hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORp considered that this movement in
reference to bribery was nothing more than an effort to
screen the Ministers of the Crown from the consequences
of their conduct in reference to Eastern affairs. Bribery
—why, the very Treasury stinks of it. (Laughter.) He
would tell the Treasury Bench that he had exercised bene-
volence in the course of the last year, and he would do so
again next year, in spite of the Treasury Bench or that
house. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He repudiated any-
thing like undue influence. The right hon. member for
Manchester said that the only way to get rid of undue in-
fluence was the ballot. Oh, the ballot ! why, it was the
most contemptible—the most un-English mode of proceed-
ing that could be adopted. He looked upon the introduc-
tion of this measure as a sort of political subterfuge on the
part of Ministers. (A laugh.)
Mr. HUME thought that the house and the country were
indebted to any man who proposed measures for putting
down bribery at elections, because the value of that house
depended on the conviction entertained by the public that
it represented the honest sentiments of the community at
large. (Hear) Ho believed that the bribery which had
recently taken place, and the exposures of that bribery
which had been made, convinced many people that the time
had come when some remedy for the evil should be de-
vised. There were two points which had been overlooked
by the noble lord—the first was the punishment of agents
convicted of bribery, and, secondly, the punishment of
those who were proved to have been bribed. Candidates
might often shelter themselves under the conduct of their
agents, and until the agents were punished by suspension
for ever the enormity of bribery would not be corrected.
In the case of the bribed, it would be well if a tribunal
having summary jurisdiction were appointed, with power
to disqualify those proved guilty of bribery for 10 or 12
years. (Hear, hear.) His own opinion was that the only
remedy for putting down bribery would be found to be the
ballot. The noble lord would decidedly give a crowning
triumph to his previous career by introducing the ballot—
at least permitting it to be exercised by any constituency,
two-thirds of whom should prefer that mode of polling
their votes. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PACKE approved of the idea of giving assessors to
the Parliamentary committees in future. He wished to
call attention to the practice of treating, and to suggest a
remedy for that evil. The elections at present occupied
two days—the day of nomination, and the day of polling,
on which days riot and drunkenness widely prevailed. It
would certainly be a great improvement if the public-
houses in the locality where the election took place were
compelled to remain closed on those two days—(laughter)
—as by these means much immorality would be effectually
prevented. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. H. BERKELEY was glad to see the noble lord pro-
gressing in the cause of reform, though he should regret at
the same time that his pace was so tardy. The noble lord
spoke of intimidation by violence ; but did he not know
there were such things as intimidation of tenants by land-
lords, and of tradesmen by customers? The noble lord was
evidently on the brink of the ballot. but was afraid to take
the final step. Secrecy at the polling-booth was the only
protection to the voter ; and the number of election peti-
tions tried last year demonstrated the necessity for the
ballot. No man received money for a vote until after he
bad recorded it—the great mass of evidence last year went
to prove that. So that, with the protection of the ballot,
no man would give moneyeither before or after, inasmuch
as he would not know how the vote was recorded. The
ballot was, however, a measure of time ; and the day was
certain to arrive when the people of this country would
stand astonished that such an act of justice should have
been so long denied them. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PHINN said that treating should he placed on the
same footing as bribery. He thought that good would be
done by the withholding the publication of the poll book
for some time after the election. The preliminary com-
mittee would act as an impediment to justice. He asked
that the compromising of election petitions should be pre-
vented, and that a public prosecutor should be appointed.
And he also advocated inquiry on the spot, instead of bring-
ing witnesses to London.
Mr. MILES thought that in any measure which the
house might adopt, provision should be made to check the
scandalous intimidation which, at the last election, had
prevailed in Clare and in other parts of Ireland, and which
had been a disgrace to that country. He thought the
clause proposed by the noble lord would not touch spiri-
tual intimidation. (Hear, hear.) If they were to have
assessors to guide the decisions of the election committees,
they should at least be men of such standing as would con-
vince the country that their decisions were not influenced
by party feelings.
Mr. RICH would also suggest to the noble lord that the
assessors should possess higher legal attainments than bar-
risters of ten years' standing did, and the number of ten
might be reduced to three or four who would form a corps
of aid to Parliament on private bills and other matters.
Mr. WARNER would regret if the house could not
confer a permanent jurisdiction in election matters on
some older body than a committee of the house, for be
thought everything should give way before the extreme
importance of an investigation on the spot. He hoped that
if assessors were appointed to advise committees of the
house, they would be men of the highest legal standing.
He thought, however, that intimidation would never be
successfully put down unless there were vote by ballot,
and that the publication of the state of the poll in the
middle of the day was one great source of bribery. He
thought a measure might be introduced by which votes
might be taken at the residences of the voters, or they
might get a stamped form from the relieving officer, which
they might fill up, and send by post as a record of their
vote.

Mr. R. PFITLLIMORE congratulated the noble lord on
having brought forward a bill, with an object which every
lover of truth and honour must applaud. He, however,
thought there were some points of difficulty in the pro-
posed measure. He agreed with the hon. member for
Bath (Mr. Phinn) that, considering there were members of
the house most eminent in the legal profession, they would
answer the purpose intended by the noble lord far better
than a tribunal of assessors. He thought also the noble
lord should introduce into his measure a clause, with the
view of calling on every member taking his seat in that
house, to declare on his honour that no bribers' had to his
knowledge taken place during his election. (Hear.)
Mr BALL said the country would never be perfectly
satisfied with the integrity of the house until a candid de-
claration was required from every member, that he had
not spent one shilling, directly or indirectly, in bribery or
treating. With respect to the suggestion of the hon.
member for Bath, he would carry it further. He thought
as they bad so many legalgentlemen in the house, it would
not be a bad plan to make useof them. They all knew in
election petitions how the time of the committee was oc-
cupied by long speeches, and the large sums that had to be
paid in the shape of retainers, fees, refreshers, and such
like. Now, he thought if the legal gentlemen in the house
were to conduct the cases before the committees, each
taking the cases belonging to their own party, the business
would be done a great deal better and a great deal cheaper
at the same time. (Laughter.)
Sir B. HALL tendered his thanks for the bills, but
thought Lord J. Russell had been too lenient as regarded
agents. Adverting to the country attorneys who mixed
themselves up in elections, he suggested a clause, that if
they were caught tripping they should be at once struck off
440 rolls. He was strongly opposed to the assessors being
members of that house.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE expressed his opinion that under
no circumstances ought a petition, once presented, to be
allowed to be withdrawn, and that the recognisance sys-
tem ottit
to be amended. He wished the lawyers were
ot to
the
suletbieicei
as they bothered the members and mysti-
fied Sir J. TitoLto.r,,
.c.e, was also an advocate for introduc-
ing the prelirnimu7 measure in a much more stringent
form.
Sir J. WALMSLPY thought the measures were a step
in the right direction
tlei,ut he recommended that the
punishment of bribing v.raneksushould be made easy and in-
expensive, through the
;i.iilaotf the county courts.
Mr. NAPIER considered y
tothe moral education of
the people was the effectual w
suppress election mal-
practices, but he admitted treat thisl;l was likely to do
good. He urged that protection• o'lght to be granted against the intimidation practised in Ireland.-anted
After some observations by air. A
Lcoox and Mr. 11.
BENT INCK,
Mr. H. DRUMMOND said it was tree that the Ati
tion against his hon. friend the member for East, Surrey
was groundless, but his hon. friend had forgotten to
how it came to be abandoned. His hon. friend's state
porters had got up a counter petition against hiroseu,sauTti
for the purpose of the other being withdrawn. (A laugh.)
He believed the real remedy for the evils of the existing
system was the revival of the annual Parliaments—whicli
used to be the system until the Whigs came in with their
Septennial Act. (Laughter.)
Mr. J. O'CONNELL agreed with the right hon. and
learned member for Dublin University, that it was neces-
sary to protect Irish voters against intimidation, but it was
the intimidation of their landlords. He was persuaded
that the only true remedy against corruption and intimi-
dation was the ballot ; and that all this patchwork
legislation, session after session, would prove utterly in-
effectual.
Mr. L. KING doubted the wisdom of requiring deposit
of the thousand potmds for which the razognisances were
sow required. It might prevent the presentation of peti-

tions; for not every one worth a thousand pounds could
deposit it any time.
Mr. T. KENNEDY said a few words in favour of the
ballot.
Lord J. RUSSELL said his bill comprised provisions as
to petitions and agents. And it was provided that every
candidate should have only one authorised agent, and be
responsible for no other. (Hear.)
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
THE LA W OF SETTLEMENT.
Mr. BAINES, in rising to move for leave to bring in a
bill to amend the laws relating to the settlement, removal,
and the chargeability of the poor in England and Wales,
said he hoped the house would allow him very respectfully
to request their indulgence while he endeavoured to bring
before them, with as much simplicity and brevity as pos-
sible, a subject of great difficulty and perplexity, and cer-
tainly of great importance. (Hear.) He believed that it
was a subject important to all classes—to those engaged in
commerce and agriculture, to employers as well as to la-
bourers, and above all to that class which, in the situation
he had the honour to hold, he considered himself the pecu-
liar advocate in that house—the destitute poor. (Hear.)
Within the last ten years a very unusual degree of public
attention has been bestowed on that subject, and within
that time he might say with truth, that a greater amount
of accurate information with respect to it had been
obtained than at any former time. (Hear, hear.) In
the years 1844, 1845. and 1846, earnest discussions took
place in that house, and in the year 1847 a committee
was appointed to investigate the whole subject of the
law of settlement and removal. That committee con-
sisted of gentlemen admirably qualified to conduct such
inquiries; and, inasmuch as he should have to lay some
stress on their recommendations, the house would pardon
him if he stated the names. Mr. Charles Buller was the
chairman, and the other members were the present First
Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Graham), Sir George
Grey, Mr. Henley, Mr. W. Miles, Mr. Bankes, Lord Harry
Vane, Mr. Evelyn Denison, Mr. George Poulett Scrope,
Mr. C. Villiers, Mr. Aldam, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Duncombe,
Mr. Round, and Mr. Borthwick. They investigated the
subject most fully, and they had the advantage of examin-
ing witnesses from all parts of the country, and particu-
larly persons who were conversant with the administration
of the poor-laws. In the year 1848 Mr. Charles Buller,
who in the meantime had become President of the Poor-
law Board, in order to obtain still further light on this
subject, determined to send out into different parts of the
country eight gentlemen, all duly qualified to conduct such
an inquiry with efficiency, to inquire into the law of
settlement and removal in fourteen counties of the country,
chiefly agricultural. They did inquire very minutely and
elaborately, and reports were presented and laid on the
table of the house, and afterwards distributed among the
members, full of important evidence as to the working of
the law, and peculiarly valuable, as especial pains had
been taken to obtain information from those who were
practically acquainted with the administration of the
existing law. When these reports, parliamentary and
official, had been all laid before this house, an opinion was,
he thought, very naturally expressed in various quarters,
that inasmuch as all the information that could be hoped
for was obtained, it became the duty of the Government,
difficult and complicated as the subject was, to grapple
with it, and do their best to arrive at some improvement
of the existing law ' • for all agreed on this, perhaps the
only point on which they were agreed, that nothing could
be worse or more indefensible than the existing law.
(Cheers.) Inquiries were made of the Government from
time to time as to their intentions to originate such a mea-
sure, and last session, it would be remembered, notices
of motion were given on both sides of the house—one by
the hon. member for Berkshire, and the other by the hon.
member for Stafford—of resolutions proposing to affirm
this proposition, that the law of settlement and removal
ought to be abolished, and the area of chargeability en-
larged. In the other house of Parliament, Lord Berners
actually introduced a bill affirming that principle ; and it
was only on a distinct pledge being given by the Govern-
ment, that they would consider the subject with a view to
introducing some measure this session, that the bill was
withdrawn. It was in redemption of that pledge that he
had now the honour to stand before them to explain as
simply and as shortly as he could the bill which the Govern-
ment thought fit to submit to Parliament. He was quite
sure of this, that he had the honour of speaking in the
presence of a great number of gentlemen whom it would
be perfectly vain in him to endeavour to instruct in any
way as to the law of settlement. Very much to the ad-
vantage of the country they had themselves taken an active
part in the administration of that law. But there were
other gentlemen who had not perhaps paid the same atten-
tion to the subject, and there were many out of doors who
seemed to him to entertain very erroneous opinions with
respect to it. He should, therefore, very shortly, and
avoiding everything like technicality, state what he con-
ceived to be the substance of the present law of settlement
and removal, and the manner in which it operated. It
was well known that the area of chargeability under our
law for the support of the poor was a parish—not the parish
even in the ecclesiastical sense of the term, for under the
poor law, "parish" was used to designate every place
maintaining poor. There were different divisions, in dif-
ferent parts of the country, having different names, but
he was speaking now of "parish" under the poor law. Of
such parishes there were no fewer than 14,614. Those dis-
tricts varied infinitely in size and population. For in-
stance, in the county of Durham there was a parish of
53,000 acres, and in the adjoining county of Northumber-
land a parish of five acres. With regard to population,
there were many parishes extremely populous, and there
were other parishes the populations of which were very
small indeed. There were no fewer than 7,000 parishes
the population of which were less than 300 each, and very
nearly 800 parishes the population of which were less than
50 each. These were facts which were v_ry material with
regard to the inquiry into which the house was now enter-
ing. (Hear, hear.) It was well known that the present
law of settlement and removal originated with a statute of
the fourteenth year of Charles 11., in 1662, the effect of
which, coupled with subsequent acts of Parliament, was
this, tnat if a person became destitute in any parish in
this country, not that of his legal settlement, upon be-
coming chargeable he was liable to be removed by warrant
of justices —by force, if necessary—to the place of his
legal settlement. A settlement, as hon. gentlemen were
aware, had been acquired in a variety of ways—by
serving an office, by apprenticeship, by hiring for service,
by renting a tenement, and otherwise ; and the effect of
the law of Charles, coupled with other statutes, was this
—that if a person became destitute in any parish but that
of his legal settlement, he, on becoming chargeable, was
liable to be removed by the warrant of justices, and by
force if necessary, to the parish of his legal settlement.
That was the principle of the law. Many people were
under a misapprehension upon this subject; they thought
settlement conferred a right to relief. That was a
; by the law of England destitution conferred the
right to relief. (Hear, hear.) If a person who had no
settlement—a foreigner for instance— was destitute in a
parish, he must be relieved there. So with regard to a
very large class of persons who had no settlement, or
whose settlement could not be ascertained, they must
be relieved where they became destitute. If a person
who had a settlement became destitute in the parish
of his settlement, then the removal did not attach as
a condition of relief ; but, if he became destitute in
any other parish, the relief operated as a penalty upon
him, because it necessitated his removal to the place of
his legal settlement. Such a man was, therefore, in
a worse position than the destitute foreigner, or a
person whose settlement was not known. The latter
might be relieved when he became destitute, and as long
as he continued so, while a man who had a settlement at
the other extremity of the country, if ho received a single
farthing, or a single loaf of bread, as relief from the over-
seer, was liable to be removed by a justice's warrant to his
I,gal settlement as the condition of that relief. There was,
however, a further consequence of this law. If the man
who had been removed, in the case he had just put, to the
other end of the country, ventured forth again from the
parish of his settlement, and came to the place from which
he had been removed, and there by any accident—such as
the stagnation of trade, became destitute again, he, as the
law stood at this moment, was liable to be treated' under
the Vagrant Act as a vagrant, and might be sent to gaol
and kept to hard labour as an idle and disorderly person.
This was, he believed, a correct and compendious view of
the law f settlement as it stood at present. (Hear, hear.)
He hail now to call the attention of the house to some of
the effects of this state of things. His belief, after looking
most carefully and anxiously into the subject, was, that
there was no one class of the community which was not
prejudiced to a greater or less extent by the existing law.
With the permission of the house he would draw their
attention to its effect upon that most important relation of
all—the relation between the employer and the labourer.
By the operation of the present law of settlement, a great
many labourers were kept in their own parishes, instead of
going to other parishes where they would be able to obtain
remunerative work. Cases frequently happened which he
would illustrate by a supposition which, he had no doubt,
had been exemplified within the knowledge of many hon.
gentlemen. A farmer was in want of a labourer; two men
presented themselves to him ; one of them was an idle,
worthless, slovenly labourer, but a settl.ed inhabitant of the
farmer's parish; the other was an industrious, sober, skilful
man, a non-settled inhabitantof the parish. Now, what were
they to think of a state of the law which actually made the
farmer take the worthless labourer and reject the good one?
(Hear.) Yet t'iat was the case. The farmer reasoned with
himself in this manner :—" This idle, worthless man will
do some work, to be sure ; he is settled in my parish ; if
he goes into the workhouse I shall have to maintain him
and his wife and family ; therefore, the best thing I can do
will be to give him some kind of job out of the workhouse,
and put up with him instead of taking the more skilful
man." Now, this system operated, in the first place, to
give the farmer an inferior kind of labour. As this was
the case in thousands of parishes, what an effect it must
have upon the productive agricultural industry of the
country ! The system must, also, have a most pernicious
effect in the way of example upon the character of the
labourer. What could they think of a system of law which
taught the idle and unskilful labourer to rely upon the ac-
cident of being settled in a parish instead of upon his
sobriety and skill, and which discouraged these charac-
teristics in the man who possessed them? When theyremem-
bered that these cases might be numbered by hundreds and
by thousands, he left the house to imagine what the aggre-
gate effect must be upon the productive industry of the
country and the character of the labourers. Under such
a system neither capital nor labour in this country could
be said to meet with its just return. He had seen peti-
tions presented to that house from the farming districts,
especially since the repeal of the corn laws, complaining
of the hardship that, while farmers were exposed to unre-
stricted competition with respect to the commodity in
which they dealt, they should not have the advantage of
free trade in labour. He thought their complaint was
most reasonable, and that it behoved the Legislature to
consider how the grievance might be remedied. The only
commodity the labourer possessed was his labour; and
could it be said that he enjoyed free trade when. he could
not take that labour to the best market, but was
obliged to remain in his own parish ? He (Mr. Baines)
was not sure that he had stated the strongest part of
the case with regard to the labourer, but what he had
stated would be verified' by the observation and expe-
rience of many honourable gentlemen. (Hear, hear.)
The present law, however, operated most injuri-
ously with regard to the residences of the labourers.
He would show the house how the law of settlement gave
a direct interest to prevent residences for labourers being
erected in parishes where, by the combination of a few
landlords, such erection could be prevented. Nearly every
ono of the present modes of creating a settlement required
a residence of a certain duration in the parish; by pre-
venting, therefore, the residence of a labourer in a parish,
you prevented the chance of his becoming settled there;
and covenants were accordingly not unusually inserted in
leases that the lessee should not build, or permit to be
built, any labourers' cottages on his farm. (Hear.) There
was actually a case on the books wherein a farmer had had
an action brought against him by the parish for having
made new parishioners," that was to say, for having
hired two farm servants for a year, and so created two pos-
sible additional claimants on the rates. (Hear.) There
were a great many parishes in the country called close
parishes, by which very expressive designation was indi-
cated parishes, w
, who, by combination among them- there was but one landlord, or,