The Sun.
London, England, 1854-04-04 00:00:00

could not recognise the distinction taken by the bill be-
tween bribery and undue influence. He thought that a
pound's worth of any kind of goods was as much bribery
as a pound in money; in fact, he was at a loss to know
what was undue and what was due influence. He con-
cluded by moving that the bill should be referred to a
select committee, in the hope that it would be promptly
proceeded with.
Mr. DEEDES seconded the amendment, and ex-
pressed the difficulty which he felt in dealing with the
three measures separately, all of which related more or
less to elections. He hoped the noble lord would con-
sent to the proposal. All who sat on election commit•
tees must have seen that this was a growing evil, and
one which cast opprobrium on the house and on mem-
bers individually. If the committee went into the ques-
tion with a determination to apply a remedy to the
evil, he was certain their end would be attained. It was
most important to deal with the question conclusively.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was greatly disappointed
at the amendment of his right hon. friend. He con-
sidered that, if it were successful, it would be equivalent
to postponing till another session any consideration rela-
tive to bribery. (Hear, hear.) In the way he proposed
to consider these bills there was not really any practical
difficulty. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite,
who had considered both the bills, had pointed out that
clause 2 and the two following clauses in his (Lord J.
Russell's) bill, with reference to oaths, and likewise
clause 7, with reference to agents, related to the same
subjects as were treated in his bill. Undoubtedly he
was quite right ; and it would be inconvenient for the
house to discuss one set of provisions of that kind with-
out having others before them, which the author of the
bill, at least, considered more effectual. But he should
have had no difficulty in proposing the postponement of
all those clauses. When the committee had gone through
the other clauses he should have proposed that the chair-
man do report progress ; they could then immediately
go into the bill of the hon. and learned gentleman, and
consider its various provisions with reference to that and
other subjects. Besides these few clauses there were
several matters treated in both bills for which different
provisions were made ; and the house would have no
difficulty in dealing with these propositions in ommit-
tee. The last speaker pointed out several other provi-
sions which were not in either bill, and said that there
were several persons competent to suggest other provi-
sions which ought to be introduced. But let the house
consider what a large field was thus opened. If the bills
went before a select committee it could not be expected
that the members would agree as to their provisions ;
for many members of the house had different opinions
on these subjects. There would therefore be all the
provisions of these bills to consider—all those which

the right hon. gentleman had recommended, and all
the others which might be suggested ; and, this
being so, they could hardly hope to get the bills
back from the committee before the end of May or the
beginning or middle of June. They would then have
to be discussed in committee of the whole house ; and it
was a subject on which so many members of the house
were informed, so many having served on election com-
mittees who could not possibly be on the select com-
mittee, that considerable time must be occupied in dis-
cussing the bills in committee of the whole house. They
would hardly reach the House of Lords before a very late
period of the session, when there would' be great danger
of their being put aside for the session. Therefore the
real question for consideration was, whether or not the
house was disposed to entertain the bills. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman said he objected to many of
their provisions ; but the house in committee could en-
tertain those objections, If it found that too severe
penalties were affixed to persons committing the offence
of bribery, that surely was a question of principle to be
considered in committee of the whole house ; and they
might decide, if they saw fit, in favour of more lenient
penalties. There was no practical difficulty in dealing
with the question. On the other hand, if the bills were
sent before a select committee he (Lord J. Russell)
should be utterly unable to attend on it, he could only
take part in the discussion in committee of the whole
house when the bills came back. He hoped the house
would now go into committee and consider these pro-
visions. The laws relating to bribery were tolerably well
known ;be proposed to consolidate those laws. With
regard to the alterations to be made in the law, the
house would be a tolerably good judge; he certainly was
quite ready to abide by its decision in preference to
sending the bills before a committee up stairs.
Mr. WALPOLE said he had on a former occasion in-
timated that he should not interfere with the course pro-
posed to be taken by the noble lord ; otherw se he
should certainly have been strongly of opinion that great
advantage might be derived from a full investigation of
the subject by a select committee. But upon considera-
tion, he did not think it would be advisable to press the
amendment. In the first place he should be very un-
willing to take any coarse which might appear to have
the object of preventing the measure front passing this
session, or which might seem to be in any way of a
party character. The noble lord had taken the fairest
possible course that could be suggested ; ha proposed to
take Sir F. Kelly's bill second in order, relating as it
did to tae same subject, the prevention of bribery, and
to postpone the controverted clauses in his own bill.
Another reason fur objecting to the amendment was
that stated by the noble lord, that he himself would be
unable to serve on the committee ; and any committee
without the noble lord's assistance would not give satis-
faction. (Hear, hear.) He, therefore, hoped that the
amendment would not be pressed. He thought it right
to take that opportunity of stating that there were cer-
tain clauses in his bill of of last session which ho should be
under the necessity of proposing as asisendinents on this
bill.

Col. SIBTHORP said, that with regard to bribery he
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-
victed of bribery. (Hear.) There was purity for you!
(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 inttoduced 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 whip and tory benches (L inghter.) He
should move the further postponement of the bill till
that day six months.
The SPEAKER said the hon. and gallant member
ceold not move that amendment now.
Mr. PHINN 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 election 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-
flicting 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 nines 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. PIG-OTT opposed the amendment.
Mr. I. BUTT should vote for the amendment if it
were messed 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, hear.) Hasty
legislation was not likely to be at all effectual.
Mr. NAPIER thought the sooner the house got into
the subject the better. 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 for, 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 pretend 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 HOTHAM said it appeared to him that, with
the exception 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 No complicated, that there could be
no satisfactory legislation upon it without a select
committee.
The house then divided—
For 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 be 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-
t!oned this because last year a case came before au 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 bead money, that
was provided for in a subsequent part of the bill. With
regard to the third point, he thought it better that the
words "`kindred or otrwity" should not be introducod,

because the voter might be influenced by a person who
was no relation receiving a bribe.
Mr. V. SMITH 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 cleaned;
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 lion. and learned gentleman
would make the clause more clear. The object of the
clause was to strike at an offence characterised by a
males 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. PHINN suggested the words " employed by
him," which were the words used in the statute of
George 11.
Mr. I. BUTT thought it quite right that the agent
direc'ed to commit should be 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 probability be adopted.
Lord HOTHALVI 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 HOTHANI 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 not get over the difficulty.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL reminded the com-
mittee that the clause under consideration was a penal
clause, imposing a penalty of 1001. Committees of that
house did not impose penalties or en'orce penal statutes,
therefore the noble lord was not quite correct when be
said the interpretation of the measure would rest with
committees of the house.
Lord tioruA.m wished to know whether the gift of
offices and places by members of her Majesty'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 thepenalty at
1001. being real,
Mr. WALPOLE proposed to alter the amount to
50/. The only elect 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 he 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 CHAIRMAN 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
pers )n prosecuted for bribery he had to pay the costs,
while if he prosecuted for riot the costs were allowed.
The SOLICI fOR-GRNERAL said the suggestion
was an exceedingly valuable one. The Attorney-General
was at present nut in the house, but he would consult
him upon it.
Mr. HENLEY hoped the hon. gentleman would well
consider on this subject before he made up his mind
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 them-
selves, the public paying the costs.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL remarked that all such
prosecutions would be subject to the control of the At-
torney-General.
Mr. G. BUTT opposed the proviso.
Mr. PHINN observed that in all cases the costs wore
at the discretion of the court, and if it saw that the pro-
secution was improperly instituted it would not allow the
costs.

Lord R. GROSVENOR asked if it was intended to
prevent candidates being charged with travelling ex-
penses, which were frequently made the means of bri-
bery.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not propose to make
any alteration in that respect in this bill.,
Clause 5 was then agreed to.
On clause 6,
Mr. WALPOLE sail clause 5 dealt with persons who
offered bribes, and clause 6 related to persons who re-
ceived bribes. By this clause they made a person guilty
of bribery who asked for any place on account of having
voted for any ptrticular candidate. Suppose a person
who voted for the noble lord (Lord John Russell), and
within a year after ha asked for place which he was
perfectly competent to fill, was he to be deemed guilty of
bribery ?

Col. SIBTHORP said a wink was as good. (Laughter.)
The whole of this bill was nothing more nor less than an
attempt to undermine the fair and legitimate right of
those who possessed the property—he meant the aris-
tocracy„

The- SOLICITOR-GENERAL said his present im-
pression was that the words "ask for" had better be 1, ft
out. (Hear, and laughter.) It would be necessary to
make this clause and the counterpart of clause 5 corre-
spond. He would therefore take it into consideration
previous to the re-committal of the bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the clause would have very
little operation, as it would be difficult to prove a case
so as to bring about a conviction,
Mr. HILD YARD said it was absurd to insert such a
clause. When Lord Derby took office, he (Mr. Elild-
yard) had many applications from his constituents for
places ; and when Lord Derby left office those applica-
tions ceased. Was the noble lord about to declare that
the practice which had heretofore prevailed should cease
to exist ?

Mr. MALINS also opposed the clause on similar
grounds.

- Colonel SIBTHORP said that during the six and
twenty years he had been in the house he had never
asked a favour of any Government. At the same time
he had always been courteously treated by both Whigs
and Tories, and he attributed that to the straightforward
course he had always pursued.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the object of this bill was to
consolidate and amend the law relating to bribery.
Hon. gentlemen, however, spoke as if he were intro-
ducing for the first time a clause against persons receiv-
ing a bribe in the shape either of moiety or employ-
ment ; but they entirely forgot that there were already
upon the statute book laws for that purpose ; and what
he proposed to do chiefly by this clause was to reduce
the penalty imposed by the act of George 11. from 500/.
to 50/. There was no doubt whatever that there were
some words in the clause that went beyond thmexisting
law, and his hoc.. and learned friend pri posed to recon-
sider it with the view of making an alteration in its
phraseology, though without any alteration it would
not apply to the case which had been put by the hon.
and learned member for Cockermouth.
Mr. DISRAELI said the bill not only consolidated,
but it also amended and extended the law in a very ma-
terial particular. The great fault of these consolidation
bills was that they consolidated that which often ought
to be repealed. The clause as it now stood was mon-
strous in its provisions, but it appeared to him that if
they were to leave out the last two lines many of the
objections would be got rid of.
Sir W. CLAY suggested that the best way to pre-
vent these cases was to extend the constituencies. Most
of the applications for places came from small con-
stituencies.

Mr. WALPOLE would answer the suggestion by
reading a few words from a return which had just been
laid on the table. It was a return of the boroughs con-
victed of corrupt practices between 1833 and 1853, and
the total number was 76 ; of those, being boroughs in
England and Wales, 12 had a constituency of less than
500 ; there were many between 500 and 1.000, while
there were 22 places where the constituency was more
than 1,000. In 1850 it was found that the majority of
the bribery cases applied to large towns, the worst of
which were places like Hull and Liverpool.
Sir W. CLAY had said nothing about bribery, he had
simply referred to applications for places, but even in
these large towns the bribery was confined to freemen.
Mr. BOOKER viewed this bill as a thorough piece of
humbug, but as it was intended to revolutionise the
system of Government patronage, be would propose that
the further consideration of the bill should be postponed
to a more fitting opportunity. It was ridiculous to sup-
pose that the Government would ever d•stribute their

patronage amongst other than friends and supporters.
After a remark from Mr. V. SCuLLY,
Mr. BOOKER moved that the chairman do report
progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that it appeared to him
that the Irn, member was favourable to bribery. Row-

ever, all that the committee was now required-to do was
to pass the clause, with a view to its being altered, and
the bill afterwards re-committed.

1(r, P;SR4isi 44W7729 objection to that course.