The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-21 00:00:00

eases which required special legislation, what course was
to be pursued ? They had not here so simple and easy a
case to deal with as that of Sudbury or St. Albans. The
case of Sudbury or St. Albans was one in which, though
the whole constituency was not corrupt, the corruption
was soextensive that if the corrupt portion had been taken
away there would not have remained a sufficient number
of voters to exercise the right of returning a member ; and
consequently in those cases Parliament did not hesitate to
disfranchise the whole body. If, however, the thousand
corrupt voters of Hull were disfranchised, there would
still remain three or four thousand who were not corrupt ;
a similar remark would apply to Canterbury and Cam-
bridge; and even in the case of smaller boroughs, if they
took away the corrupt part of the constituency, there
would still remain a considerable number who were not
tainted with bribery. It would, he thought, be highly
inexpedient to disfranchise such pieces as Hull, Cambridge
and Canterbury. He could not, indeed, allow any con-
sideration of justice to intervene. The question was not
one of justice or injustice ; if it were, they would not
have been justified in sacrificing the innocent portion
of the electors of St. Albans. (Hear, hear.) The
only way to look at the matter was this :—it is consistent
with the commonweal—is it consistent with the national
good as regards the representation that particular consti-
tuencies should exist ? (Hear, hear.) If, however, they
were not justified, on grounds of general expediency, in
disfranchising such places as hehad referred to, what were
they to do ? Were they to leave such places, as they had
been, a reproach and a disgrace to the country ? He
thought they could deal with those cases in a very simple
manner, and that by removing the corrupt portion, and
leaving the sound residue, taking away the shattered limb
in order that the body might be sound. If they did any-
thing, that, as it seemed to him, was the simple, plain, and
obvious course to pursue. There was, fortunately, no
difficulty as to the parties who had been guilty of corrup-
tion in the boroughs to which he had referred. They had
the reports of the commissioners naming the individuals
who had either been guilty of bribery, or had been bribed
themselves. He proposed to deal with this class of per-
sons. They had their own statements as to the facts, and
he did not see why they should hesitate to deal with per-
sons who, on their own admission, were unfit to exercise
the important functions of an elector. A difficulty had,
however, been suggested to him—he confessed he did not
feel it himself—from a quarter for which he entertained I
the most sincere respect. It was said they could not deal
with these parties, because, before they were examined,
they were promised indemnity (Opposition cheers.) He
quite understood those cheers ; and he fully admitted that
if such an indemnity as was supposed had been given either
by the provisions of the act or virtually by any promise
which Parliament held out, however grave and serious
might be the mischief with which they had to deal, it
would be a less evil that corruption and venality should
escape than that Parliament should set the example of a
breach of faith, even towards the lowest and most con-
temptible of mankind. (Hear, hear.) He could not how-
ever see the slightest difficulty in the matter. It ap-
peared to him that all Parliament had promised was im-
munity from personal and penal consequences. (Hear,
hear.) The indemnity offered was similar to that given
in the case of St. Albans and Sudbury. (Hear.) The
ninth section of the act, which authorised the appointment
of commissioners, provided that any person who gave
evidence should be "freed from all penal actions, forfei-
tures, punishments, disabilities, incapacities, and criminal
Prosecutions," to which he wouldi otherwise have been sub-
ject. Did those words apply to penal consequences then
existing, or did it oust Parliament of its power and autho-
rity to legislate specially with reference to such cases as
were reported upon ? He entertained uo doubt whatever
that it was limited to the first. Further, he found that
after a witness had given his evidence ho was to receive a
certificate from the commissioners, and the act went on to
provide, that on the production of such certificate he
should leave protection against—what? "Against any
action, information, or indictment which may at any time
be preferred against him." He (the Attorney General)
therefore entertained no doubt whatever as to what was
intended by the act. He did not wish, however, to look at
the matter with the narrow view of a lawyer. (Hear.) If
Parliament held out any expectation that witnesses should
not be made to suffer any consequences besides provided
against, Parliament ought not to punish them even for the
purpose of getting rid of corruption. He did not admit,
however, that Parliament had done anything of the kind.
What right had these parties to suppose that Parliament
meant to grant an immunity which it did not grant ? The
provisions of the statute were the same in the case of St.
Albans and Sudbury. Why should an immunity be en-
joyed by a minority when it is not enjoyed by a majority?
• (Hear, hear.) Besides if Parliament really meant to leave
cases of ascertained corruption out of the general law on
the subject why were the commissioners directed to in-
quire ? (Hear, hear.) Above all, why were they directed
to name' all those who had been found guilty of bribery ?
He apprehended that the simple object was to enable Par-
liament to deal with those particular cases. (Hear, hear.)
Now, these were the observations which suggested them-
selves to his mind. Standing iu the position he had the
honour to hold, he had felt that he ought not to shrink
from expressing his opinion ; but at the same time, if the
house should come to the conclusion that Parliament had,
either directly or indirectly, entered into a compact with
these persons, that in the event of their giving full infor-
mation they should suffer no injury whatever, he would be
the last man to wish to take advantage of what they had
done. He did not think, however, that such a construc-
tion of the act was warranted. Me thought it was the
duty of Parliament to grapple with the evil before them to
the utmost of their ability, by special legislation applied to
special cases, and under this feeling, he now felt it his
duty to ask leave to bring in a bill for the prevention of
bribery in the election of members to serve in Parliament
for the borough of Canterbury.
Mr. CAIRNS took a different view of the act under
which the several commissions w ere appointed, and con-
tended that indemnity was provided for those who should
give evidence. The proposal, therefore; to disfranchise the
persons mentioned by the commissioners was a direct breach
of public faith and public honour. Mr. Cairns called upon
the house to negative the motion.
Sir J. HANUER thought Mr. Cairns' advice was better
than that given by the Attorney-General. He repelled an
accusation made against himself, in the Kingston-upon-
Hull report, of having countenanced foul practices when a
candidate for the representation of that boron:zit in 1811.
Sir ,John's election experiences, as detailed by himself,
seemed to atibrd the house, much amusement.
Mr. PIIINN deprecated the introduction of personal
matters into the 4 list,us,ion. The question should be argued
upon general grounds, namely, having received the reports
of the commissioners, what is to be clone with them .! In
his view, the course taken by the Attorney-General is the
correct one. The indemnity can only be construed as ap•
plying to exemption from di:abi!itics which then existed.
At St. Albans and Sudbury the indemnity was given, and
yet both boroughs were disfranchised.
Mr. NAPIER said, the ground on which he would take
his stand was, shortly, the clause of indemnity. (Hear.)
That clause went upon the old-established principle, that
no man was bound to criminate himself. (Hear.) No min
was bound to answer a question that would expose him to
forfeiture of any nature whatever. Such was the law, as
laid down by the best authorities ; yet here, upon the con-
fession and answer of the witnesses, it was proposed to
make them forfeit their franchise. The words of the act
were, that such persons shall be freed from all " penal ac-
tions," and "from forfeiture," &c. To deprive a man of
his franchise was a forfeiture and permanent disability.
This was the hard and rigid construction of the law ; but
taking the clause in its spirit and intention, he would say
that there could be no manner of doubt that the object of
the Legislature was to indemnify the voter in such circum-
stances as these. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. KENNEDY said be understood that evidence had
been given of the fact of bribes having being received be-
fore recourse was had to the electors themselves ; and that
the object of calling the electors was to give them an op-
portunity of defending themselves, if improper evidence
had been produced against them. In these circumstances,
he thought a boon had been conferred upon the parties
rather than otherwise, and the house had, unquestionably,
a right to see that justice was duly done to the honest and
respectable portion of the constituency.
Mr. MASSEY believed it was avowed on all sides that,
unless the indemnity stood in the way, there was really no
substantial argument against the proposal of the Attorney-
General. Could it ever be intended by Parliament to go
to the extent of giving a man who had been guilty of cor-
rupt practices immunity for life ? It appeared to him that
it would be absurd and unconstitutional to pretend that
any act of the Legislature could or would confer on a voter
any immunity to that extent. (Hear.) The immunity
promised in the act was to protect him from legal conse-
quences, but it was not to be a title-deed for corruption all
the rest of his life. (Hear, hear.) What was this right of
which it was proposed to deprive the corrupt voter? There
were gentlemen in that house who looked upon the fran-
chise as an indefeasible right, but the constitution of this
country did not say so. A man might be in possession of
this franchise, and that house, from nigh reasons of policy,
might deprive him of it. In this way whole constituencies
had been deprived of the franchise, and could it for a mo-
ment be said that the house had not the same right in the
case of individuals? (Hear, hear.) What would be the
effect if they did not pass this bill ? Writs would go down
to all these places, and they would have persons who, on
their own confession, had abused the electoral trust, but
who had this immunity conferred on them, returning
members to that house. (Hear, hear.) On grounds of
public policy, then, as well as on grounds of common sense
and common decency, they were bound to pass the present
bill. (Hear hear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said, in considering the principle of
this bill, the question came to be, could they by law in
thin country act on a man's confession? There were parts
of the world where they might extort confession from a
mould n
ma, and act upon it ; but by the law of England that
ot be done. It occurred to him that they ought to
Interpret this statute as those persons who had been affected
down by it would read and understand it. It was distinctly laid
th
Maio testimony given by a voter before the corn-
hatai,n,ioriaer,:ittruld be used hereafter against him. The voter
not be
ocetezmined, received his certificate, and could'
On whart against at law, and his vote still remained.
that
toeesoPori:LFlnie was it that they proposed to deprive Jed a
cri his right to vote whom they could not sab-
ot' the act Iv_ prosecution ? (Hear, hear.) The words
touching suereo that the person examined as a witness
penal actions, f vruPt Practices " shall be freed from all
eoe,
disabilities, and horn ierreitures, from punishment, from
for that, in his opituonincanacities." There he would stop,
halettled the question. The clause
then went on to say t
The fair eeeaseeg
criminal prosecution to whnieehwhas also to be free from all
might be liable at the suit
of her Majesty.
of the act—for they were
not to quibble in that house
that Ekon. 414 to the meaning of acts of
er',ettawer to be punished after
having been induced to confine. e
this c.ountry
would always act according to the pes9e,biepliieseved_
Parliament
strictjustice.
at themanateontl
(Hear, hear.) The object of the actarra of
, and to furni(stoiw
ashatot
enable them to get evidence to w
general law against briber
them
they did in such cases as St. Albans
out of
with the means of framing a
- and then
but it did not empower them to get all they C00k,7,
ground oftheir
witnesses, tempting them to tell all they keeee
to turn round upon and punish them on the
evidence. He did not catch from the Attorney-General
for how many years he intended to go back with the bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he proposed to in-
capacitate those who were proved before the commissioners
to have been bribed. [An hon. MEMBER How far
back do you go 1') There was but one report on which he
went back beyond the past year.
Mr. WHITESIDE thought it would be satisfactory to
know whether they were going back to the beginning of
the century or not ? (Laughter.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—If that question was
put to him, all he had to say was that he would not conde-
scend to answer it. (" Oh ! oh !" and laughter.)
Mr. WHITESIDE must say that he was not aware of
viog put an improper question to the learned Attorney-
ueneral. (Hear.) He did not quite understand, and
neither did the hon. gentleman behind him, one part of
the Attorney-General's proposal, and a question was put
on the subject; but the learned Attorney-General would
allow hina to say that it was no answer to tell them that
ha would not condescend to reply. (Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the reason why he

gave that answer was, that he believed the question put
was one of an offensive kind. (Hear, and No, no 0
Mr. WHITESIDE would only say that, in common
with several of his friends around him who were in the
fars mteh predicamentGwe
ei tehr
ahi i mwseeel fhe
t, wishedhsek
witht
his s w how
nballs.oHe
thereforehad
withtried h
thi.
emAtAtoereneerydieg t
Genee the
ral,buptrinheaioe n
had beene
unsuccessful
which he went, it might be inconsistent with official dig-
nity to reply, but he had nevertheless a right to know
how far it was intended to carry legislation in a wrong di-
rection. He would ask the house if it was correct, when
they could not obtain in a town or borough independent
evidence to proceed with this kind of legislation ? He
thought it a right thing to put down corruption, but it was
of more importance still, in his opinion, to adhere to a prin-
ciple which would be more satisfactory to themselves, and
which would prove of more advantage to the country.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted these conflicts
of legal opinion in the house, which tended very much to
diminish the confidence of the public in the sincerity of
lawyers, and he hoped the house would endeavour not to
' decide, as an hon. member had observed, on a legal quibble,
but if possible to make out the true meaning of the statute
as far as the wisdom of the house could determine it. The
act was intended to suppress bribery and corruption, and
at the same time to furnish them with the materials of fu-
ture legislation. It was an act to enable them to legislate
about that which the law had distinguished from private
property, of which a man was absolute owner, and with
which he was entitled to do what he willed. It was an act
that legislated about the conduct of persons in the exercise
of a great public trust—(hear, hear)—and those gentlemen
who desired to adhere to the rules that should govern
a deliberative body would do well to emancipate them-
selves from all considerations of a legal quibble, and
endeavour to determine the distinction that existed
between the use made of private property, for which
a man was not responsible, and a public trust, for the
exercise of which he was morally responsible. (Hear.)
He was quite willing, in dealing with this question, that
the house should confine itself to the legal meaning of the
particular clauses in dispute, and, in the construction that
it was necessary to put upon them, he felt quite assured
that the house would have no desire to put fetters upon
itself. The clause to which the hon. and learned member
for Enniskillen more particularly referred was best ex-
plained by the concluding words of it, which went to show
not only what was the meaning to be attached to the clause,
but what protection was extended from any penal conse-
quences which might otherwise be attendant on its being
carried out. (Hear, hear.) He could not agree with the
hon. and learned member for Enniskillen as to his reading
of this clause, inasmuch as he considered such reading, how-
ever original and independent it might be—(laughter) —not
according to those grammatical rules which generally pre-
vailed, at least in this country. (Hear, hear.) To read the
clause as the hon. and learned gentleman proposed would,
in fact, be doing violence to it, and ruthlessly destroying
its meaning, than which nothing could be more clear and
explicit. (Hear, hear.) The sentences of which the clause
was composed must be read altogether, and not dismem-
bered and disjointed, to support particular or speculative
notions or constructions. (Cheers.)
Mr. WALPOLE said that the house ought to hesitate
and well consider the matter before it gave its consent to a
measure of so great and vital importance as the present,
and one which might be so serious and momentous in its
consequences and effects. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and
learned member the Solicitor-General had more than once
stated that the object of this statute was to put down
bribery. What such object really was could only be tested
and ascertained in two ways—namely, in the first place,
by referring to the preamble of the act ; and, in the second
place, by going back to wee what the intention of the
framers of the act was, what particular meaning they
wished to be attached to its clauses, and whether we were
acting up to such intention and in furtherance of and ac-
cordance with such meaning. (Hear, hear.) If he referred
to the first mode of testing the object of the act, he found
that it was simply one for the purposes of inquiry, and
nothing more, as could be clearly seen from the words of
the preamble, which distinctly and expressly stated that
such was the object of the statute. If he wished, on the
other hand, to ascertain the object of the act from the
intention of its framers, we should remember the par-
ticular occasion on which it was found to be neces-
sary, and that it referred immediately to the two
boroughs of Sudbury and St. Alban's. (Hear, hear.)
With respect to the first of these boroughs, it had been
proved that out of 280 voters 220 had been bribed, and,
further, that a sum of 3,000/. had been sent down to
the borough for the purposes of bribery had been
made use of for such purposes, and upon a calculation
that such a sum would be more than sufficient, at the
market price of the day, to bribe such 220 voters, and
so, in fact, implicating a still greater number in the sus-
picion of corruption. With respect to St. Alban's, it was
proved that out of a number of 217 186 were bribed ; and
out of a number of 280 no less than 240 were bribed. Mr.
Coppock had said of this place, that to deal with it in auy
way it must be " bribed and bled ;" and Sir Robert Car-
den, ono of the candidates for its
representation, had re-
fereed to it as a place " possessing no other principle of
action except such as might be found in the breeches
pockets." (" Hear," and laughter.) The commissioners
also had spoken of the place as wholly and completely cor-
rupt. (Hear.) The present measure, he believed, would
be far more dangerous, because more general, and less
effective, because less explicit than the statute of inquiry
to which he was referring, and which did not, as it ap-
peared to him the present measure did, violate one of the
great fundamental principles of our law—namely, that no
man should be called to condemn himself. (Cheers.) In
St. Alban's and Sudbury the bribery committed was of two
kinds, general and systematic. He had always contended
that, unless the corruption of any boroughconld be proved
to be both general and systematic, Parliament had no right
to punish the innocent as well as the guilty. (Hear.)
The Attorney-General said the House of Commons could
not disfranchise these boroughs, and the only question was,
whether, as the Solicitor-General somewhat incautiously
seemed to admit, you could deprive the electors of a right
which belonged to men whom, by the law of England, Par-
liament could not have called upon to convict themselves,
except under an assurance of indemnity ? (Hear.) What
was the great principle at stake in this question ? In other
countries men were punished upon their own evidence ; but
in this country the courts acted upon the principle so often
laid down by Lord Eldon, that you were,uever to put a
man into a position iu which it would be to his interest to
commit perjury rather than tell the truth. Parliamentlia(
said to these electors, " We will indemnify you, so that it
will be no longer your interest to commit perju.fy ;" but if
the present act were passed and persons were disfranchised
who had been indemnified from all the consequences of
giving their evidence, he should like to know where they
would get witnesses in future to give the evidence that was
to deprive them of that right, which ought not to betaken
' away from them except by evidence from other quar-
ters? (Cheers.) The commissioners themselves, in their
.report to her Majesty, spoke of the importance of the act of
Parliament giving the indemnification, because it appeared
that the very witnesses who had been examined before
committees of the House of Commons, and upon oath, had
not told the truth before those committees, but had told
the truth to the commissioners, because they were indem-
nified. (Hear, hear.) But when future commissions
should be sent into the country, and when witnesses saw
that they were no longer indemnified, but that they would
be visited with disfranchisement if they spoke the truth,
was there not great danger that perjury would be again
committed ? Why, he wanted to know, was the Attorney-
General about to deal with all these cases of individual
bribery, because they came before him in a mass, in a
different way from that in which cases had been dealt
with that had been reported upon by committees of that
house? (Hear, hear.) What could be the object of the
Legislature in passing the acts of Parliament relative to
an inquiry into these boroughs ? One object was, that
they might deal—as they had dealt with St. Alban's
and Sudbury--with any boroughs where they found them
In so corrupt a state that they could nu longer be trusted
with the right of returning members. The other ob-
ject was, that Parliament should have a mass of evidence
with reference to those boroughs accused of bribery
and corruption, so that Parliament might be enabled to
deal retrospectively with the matter by some general law.
The noble lord (J. Russell) had thus acted upon the evi-
dence so obtained; for in this Bribery Prevention Bill,
brought in during the present session, he called upon Par-
liament to enact that where a person had been convicted of
bribery he was to be disqualified for life from again voting
in elections of members of that house. (Hear, hear.) That
was right legislation, and he should never complain that
parties guilty of bribery should be disqualified after due
notice. But he protested, in the most earnest and solemn
manner, against violating the law by inducing parties to
give evidence against themselves, upon the assurance of an
indemnification, and then taking away their votes which
they thought they should not lose by reason of that in-
demnification. (Hear, hear.) He could not shut his
eyes to the difficulty of dealing with all these boroughs.
He was afraid Parliament must deal with them in some
way, but he could not see the distinction between dis-
qualifying any one of the voters of these boroughs, and
not having disqualified one voter during the last century
who, by the committee of the House of Commons, had
been declared guilty of bribery. (Hear.) It was in his
judgment more important to keep faith with those who had
been induced to give evidence by the solemn promise of an
indemnity than to punish the great mass of bribery com-
mitted in those boroughs by a retrospective law. Nor ought
the house to lose eight of this fact—that these voters ought
not to be deprived of a locus penitentice. (Cheers.) It was
said that unless these persons were disfranchised Parlia-
ment would give an immunity for future corruption. Far
from it. There was the bill of the noble lord (J. Russell),
which enacted that if these or any other parties committed
acts of bribery in future, they were to be deprived of their
votes. (Hear, hear.) He had not read these reports for
some weeks, but in one of them—he believed in the Hull
commission report—a schedule was given in which cases of
bribery were mentioned as having been committed by
parties during the last four or five elections. In other
boroughs the same parties had been guilty of these acts at
two or three elections. Now, was the Attorney-General
going to disfranchise parties who had been guilty of bribery
at two or three elections, but not at the last ? The Attor•

ney-General shook his head, but if the objection were
confined to those who had been guilty of bribery at the
last election, the objection was just as strong that this
was a retrospective law. (Hear, hear) If the Govern-
ment replied that it was necessary to punish the persons
who had committed these acts, he had shown that if they
occurred again they could be punished under a general act.
But not even for the great object of condemning and
punishing these acts would he consent to violate the funda-
mental law of England, or induce the feeling that Parlia-
ment had been guilty of a breach of faith, and that gross in-
justice had been committed. (Cheers.)
Mr. WARNER thought that the house had been some-
what taken by surprise by the nature of the measure. He
thought they ought not to reject at so early a stage any
bill which had received the sanction of the Government.
He should vote for the first reading without pledging him-
self to the principle of the bill, because he could not but
feel that very serious objections had been urged against
it. (Cheers.)
Mr. SCOTT held that the house would do better if they
extracted evidence by torture or by the thumbscrew rather
than by violating the faith of England, given under a sacred
promise to those persons who had afforded all the informa-
tion Parliament could desire to have, because they had been
assnred that if they so gave information they would not be
visited with any penalties. He would read the indemnity
clause of the act of Parliament ; n a lay sense, and then the
house would see that these parties had bean fairly inveigled
into giving evidence under false pretences. (Hear, hear.)
Raving read the indemnity clause of the act, he contended
that any person looking at it in a general sense would come
to the conclusion that such individuals giving evidence
should be free from all incapacities. He asked
whether, for
the
sake of purifying boroughs, the house would do a thing
more corrupt than that of which they complained—violate
heir faith to those individuals who had given their evidence
on that faith?
Mr. W. O. STANLEY thought, if the present measure
were not sanctioned, the sooner they repealed the act for
appointing those commissions the better.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL in reply, expressed some
regret that the debate should have been interrupted by any-
thing like all exhibition. Nothing could be further from