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

voter's residence. If he asked him to dine with him after
a long day's work, it would be very hard to declare him
guilty of treating ; he thought the word "corruptly" ought
to be inserted.
Mr. HENLEY said that the nobs lord the member for
London and his right hon. friend the member for Midhurat
had put different constructions on the clause; the latter
had said that the words "in order to be elected" had re-
ceived a judicial interpretation, and were held to mean
" corruptible influences," but the noble lord said they meant
any kind of treating. Thus two members of the select com-
mittee differed in their interpretation of the clause. He
would support the amendment, and not leave so important
a matter to the varying deoisions of election committees.
The word " corruptly,', ought to be made to override the
whole clause.
Mr. COLLIER thought that the clause'ought to extend
to every species of treating ; let any honourable member
that wished move a provision to exempt cases when it was
done by the agreement of both sides.
Mr. _the
said that they ought to consider the
clause carefully before adopting it. He had always been
of opinion that moderate treating was legal, and that Lord
Lyndhurst had so decided. The clause provided for three
offences—to accept with a motive, to give with.a corrupt'
motive, or to give without a corrupt motive. If theltstter
was to be an offence, it was unnecessary to specify the case
of corruption.
- The ATTORNEY-GENERA.L said his view of the mat-
ter and the result of the decision was this :—when re=
fieshment was given to a voter who would not come to the
poll without it, and his travelling expenses, it was clearly
money or money's worth given to a voter to induce him to
vote, and, therefore, within the words of the statute of
William. He should be understood as solely referring to
the ease put by the member for the West Riding of re-
freshment given to a voter who would not come to the
poll unless ne received it.
Mr. E. BALL suggested that all difficulty might bo got
over by moving the word " corruptly " from the 27th • to
the first line of the clause, so that it might overrule the
whole.
Mr. PIIINN said that the objectof the statute of William
was to'.diminish the expenses of elections. The cominittee
in the case of 'North Cheshire had decided that under it
moderate treating was legal. Sir Robert Peel and the noble
lord the member for London had approved of this decision
'but circumstances had greatly changed since then; the
time of polling was reduced to one -day, and any member
of polling places might be erected, so that even moderate
treating was no longer necessary, and he thought it ought
to be put a stop to. They could establish a different rule
for counties and boroughs. He would suggest that the
clause be allowed to pass as it stood; and another brought
up to- meet the case of refreshment and travelling ex-
penses. .
Mr. WALPOLE thought it desirable to adopt the sug-
gestion of the hon. member for Canibridgeshire. In that
ease he hoped his right hon. friend (Sir J. Pakington) would
withdraw his amendment. The clause did not extend to
travelling expanses. The matter had been discussedin the
select committee, who had differed in opinion, and thought
it better to allow the matter to be left to the declei on of
the house.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would the sug,ges,
tion, on the understanding that another clause was to be
proposed, as suggested by the member for Bath. If that
clause were rejected, he reserved to himself the right to
move to reinsert the word "corruptly" in the 27th line on
bringing up the report.
Sir i.. KELLY entirely concurred in the CDIITS3
gested by -Mr. Walpole. Ho trusted that the silkiest* of
refreshment tickets and travelling- expenses of the-voters
would be put separately to the house. In addition to the
clauses of his right hon. friend, he'hoped the -question as
to the legalityor illegality of the act would ho
raised for the opiiton of the himse in fall attendance.
There should be no distinction in the law between coun-
ties and boroughs. It was a matter of considerable mo-
ment -to the former that some reasonable refreshment
should be allowed to voters coming in many instances from
a great distr.-ace to the poll.
Mr. HENLEY would withdraw the amendment of his
right hon friend the menber for Droitevich on the under-
standing that the word "corruptly" would be inserted.
After a few words from Mr. V. SCULLY and Mr.
THORNELY,

Mr. BARROW said that if the expenses of the county
voters were not paid, half of the county constituents would
be disfranchised. He could never consent to give his vote
to that effect.
In answer to Mr. CAYLEY,
Mr. COLLIER fa'd he would poApone pressing his
amendment ur;til the bringing up of the report, when ho
hoped Govertme It would take the matter is hand.

air J. WALASLEY stated that in the West Riding
there were at least 3G,00) electors. If each elector were
to get 25., they might easily estimate what a large sum it
would amount to. tinder such circumstances none but
the most wealthy could stand as representatives for such
districts.

Mr. DE NT.SON said that in 1807 the expeuseclof the West
Riding election came to 250,0001., and in 1826 to 170,000/.
Even now, when brought down to the lowest possible
limits the amount was not under 14,00 i/. It was, there-
fore,-hardly necessary for him to state how desirous the
county members were to stop corruption. All they wished
for was to afford some refreshment to those who spent a
whole day in journeying to the poll. It was different in a
borough election, where a man could record his vote and
return to his work with scarcely any lose of time, and
without being put to inconvenience.- He challenged the
house to show if corruption in the counties approached
in any degree the extent of bribery practised in the
boroughs. _ _ _

Mr. FOX said he had been returned three times to Par.
liament by one small borough, and that these threo elec-
tions had not, cost him three shillings. 'Many oter new
b3rdaghs had continued untainted till some wealthy gen:
tlenierr, ambitious for senatorial honours, had come into
the field and commenced canvassini;.. If they would try
the ballot, it would be of consequence: how high the
refreshment ticket might be.
Mr. WILLIAMS had known the case of an election won
by a large breakfast given to a party of electors.
The ametament was then withdrawn, and clause 4 was
then agreed to.
On clause 9 being read,

Mr. MALINS -moved the insertion of the words,
"spiritual or temporal." He said that tha words in the
clause ware "damage, harm, or loss," but did not include
the damage supposed to accrue from spiritual denunciations
from the altar. To meet this latter case he proposed the
insertion of the words.
The committee dividel—
For the amendment
Against
Majority
The clause was then agreed to.
On the question that the clause stand part of the bill,
Mr. H. BERKELEY thought that the clause would be
quite inoperative in preventing intimidation. How could
they prove undue influence by a landlord ? He would
undertake to prove that in ninety-nine cases out of a
hundred, of intimidation, no threatening was used by
landlord to tenant, cr by tradesman to customer. To
show the difficulty of proving intimidation, ho would just
mention a case. At the Bristol election therd were three
candidates—M`Geschy, Berkeley, and Langton. A
tradesman and elector of that city—a greengrocer —had'
always voted for the liberals ; but on this occasion was
canvassed by a tory innkeeper, his best customer, for
Di`Gleachy. He voted for the liberal, and on his next ap-
plication to the innkeeper for an order, he was threatened
to be kicked out of the house. How could they Ppply the
clause to that case? The clause would be perfectly in-
operative in such a case, and it would be. inoperative
Against the landlord if the landlord thought proper to hold
his tongue, audit would beperfectly inoperative in dealing
with the election screw in any case where it was systellia-
tically applied. He had, he contended, a right to sift this
clause, because it was in direct opposition to the 200 mem-
bers who voted in favour of his motion to establish the
ballot, and in opposition to the view of the Solicitor and.
Attorney-General and one half of the members of the Go-
vernment.
Mr. V. SMITH intimated an intention to take the
sense of the committee against the words id clause 5,
" or any fraudulent device or contrivance." He complained
that the clause would not have any effect in meeting the
great tyranny of the transfer of custom, and anoth-rdefect
was that, while it punished the man who exorcised undue
influence it did not punish the person who profited by such
undue inflnence

26
125
--99

Mr. WALPOLE opposed the amendment, which was
withillawn, and after a short conversation,
Mr. V. SMITH then moved the addition of words for
the purpose of invalidating any vote obtained by means of
undue influence or intimidation.

Mr. tirALPOLE and Mr. J. PHILLIMORE opposed the
amendment. _ _

' Mr. HILDYARD thought nothing wontd tend so much
to diecOuragement of intimidation as the knowledge that
•voles obtained in that way would be thrown away. Mr. ITEWDEGATE considered the suggestion of Mr. V.
Smith a valuable one and that its adoption would go far
to meettliat kind of intimidation which, by means of organ-
ised mobs to bring which to the
afforded gcili+s poiling place the railways
---es, was now frequently brought to bear upon
the.electors to prevent the free exorcise of their right of
sisting.
Colonel BLAIR suggested that some means should be
provided for punishing the disgusting oence of spitting
which prevailed occasionally
at elections iffn Scotland.
The LORD ADVOCATE had no doubt the disgusting
practice his hon. and gallant friend alluded to would come
within the general term of intimidation
clause ;-if hethought it would not as included in this
, perhaPB he would him-
self suggest a clause on the subject.
Mr. ATHERTON !supported the amendment.
Mr. LIDDELL (Liverpool) thought it better to allow
the clause to remain as it was.
Mr. MULLINGS opposed the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL considered the introduction of the
words
convicteprodposed would lead to confusion. If a person were
of having exercised intimidation or undue in.
fac flUe
tnee onh
t certai
the n voters, and evidence were giv.en of the
, and at y had given their votes in consequence of
such intimidation or undue influence, it might be proper
to disfranchise them ; but if a person could come with a
petition to that house, and upon the allegation that such a
voter had been intimidated, and that such an one, for hav-
ing voted for a particular candidate, had obtained a trans-
ference of his custom from some other tradesman, it would
be difficult to sustain any return.
Mr. V. SMITH stated that ho would take the sense of
the committee upon the amendment, and
The committee divided-
-6.3 .
For the amendment
•
Against it /32 - 69
The clause was then passed.
Clauses 6,7, 8,9, were agreed to.
On clause 10 which referred to legal agencies,
Mr. E. DENISON suggested that the clause would pre-
vent the employment of all local agencies.
Mr. LIDDELL thought that the disabilities of agetntes
was (*flied too far, and he moved the omissionof the
clause 'and the substitution of the following
of a lowing :
person shall, either during any election
.m‘eimlfberani:
t'
serve hi parliament, or within six calendar months pre.-
vious to such election, or within fourteen day
shall have been completed, be employed_i_ at suchs aft
electionerit
as Ansel, agent, attorney, p
otherelection, c iisg
41apacity, for the purposes of su h
011-clerkman,
oarndinshaanlyl
at any time, either before, during, or after such election,
accept or take from any such candidate or candidates, or
from any person whatsoever
for or in consideration of, , or.
with reference to such employment, any sum or sums of
mono 7, retaining fee, office, place, or em?loyment, or any
promise or security for any sum or suins of money, retain-
ing fee, office, place, or employmentssuch person shall be
deemed incapable of voting at such election, and his vote,
if given, shall be utterly void and of notes effect, and shall
render him liable to forfeit the Sim of fifty pounds to any
person who shall are for the same, together with full costs
ofo suit."
Mr. -W. ATHERTON thought the clause most objection-
able. -If it was the intention of the bill that a candidate
at an blectioli. should be his own counsel, agent, or poll
clerk, let it.say so directly, and not indirectly. Nothing
could be more reasonable than that a candidate should have
assistance, an agent, an attorney, who, to be of use, shoulct
lire 94 the spot, _ Nor had his objection been removed by