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

his thonghtsthanany wish to be offensive, and he certainly
took credit for not exhibiting either within the house
or out of it, anything like what an hon. and learned gentle-
men had been pleased to term " official dignity." (Cheers
and laughter.) Perhaps, by way of excuse, he might be
allowed to reply that that hon. and learned gentleman was
not himself always in the mildest humour—(laughter)—and
there was occasionally something in his manner not exactly
calculated to excite the blandest feelings (renewed laughter)
—however if he (the Attorney-general) had said anything
that had given offence to any individual, he very sin-
cerely withdrew it. (Cheers.) With respect to the pre-
sent measure, it did not appear that the hon. members
who opposed it denied the proposition that it was essential
to do something to improve the constituencies to which
the bill referred, and the whole question was, whether any
act of Parliament had been passed which limited them
either in point of law or good faith, for he most cordially
concurred that if that act by a fair construction implied a
compact with the persons in question, Parliament was
bound in good faith to leave them in the exercise of their
franchise. .Bat he did not see such was the case ; certainly
it was not' upon the construction of the hon. gentleman
who had read the clause ; for he had omitted an essential
part and added something not in it at all. He (the At-
torney-General) regretted, considering how many hon.
members of the legal profession had addressed the house,
that one of the most distinguished lights and ornaments of
that profession, and one perfectly conversant with the act
in question—ite meant his hon. and learned friend oppo-
site, had taken no part in the discussion; and he attri-
buted his silence to the fact that ho could not, as a lawyer,
stand up in that house and controvert his (the Attorney-
General's) proposition. There might have been some
ground for argument if the commissioners had given to the
voters any reason to believe that not only would they be
protected by the act of Parliament against any legal or
penal consequences, but against all future legislation.
There was no evidence of anything of the kind ; indeed, he
would ask, how could they impose restrictions on the house,
and what was the reason forcalling upon the commissioners
to report by name every man guilty of bribery unless the
Legislature contemplated their disfranchisement ? With
respect to the question which had been put as to how far
back he intended to go, ho would say, speaking generally,
not beyond a single election, although there were in some
cases special reasons for going back two elections; and he
believed it would be found that the commissioners them-
selves had not gone back beyond one or two elections. He
submitted the present measure was no violation of faith on
the part of the house; if it were, he would be the last per-
son to bring it forward.
Sir F. KELLY expressed his thanks for the handsome
eulogium passed on him, but he was afraid it might be the
occasion of his inflicting a speech on the house, which
would not otherwise have been the case, as he should have
been content to leave the case in the hands of his right
hon. and learned friend the member for Midhurst ; but,
having been, as it were challenged, he must say that this
was the very first time on which a bill had ever been
brought forward in either house of Parliament to inflict
pains and penalties and disabilities on a number of indi-
viduals who had been convicted by no jury, and yet who
were, under the sanction of the house, to be deprived of a
franchise which the law conferred upon them, upon an ex
parte report, against which they had not liven had. the op-
portunity of being heard. (Hear, hear.) His right hon.
and learned friend (Mr. Walpole) had put a question to
the Attorney-General which he (Sir F. Kelly) thought was
not an unreasonable one. It was whether this bill, which
had for its object the disfranchisement of a large number
of persons, sought only to disfranchise those who appeared
to have committed bribery at the last election, or whether
it included all who had committed bribery at the numerous
preceding elections which had been inquired into by the
commissioners? (Hear, hear.) The commissioners re-
ported not as to one or two, but six, seven, and eight elec
tions, and in the case of Maldon their inquiries extended
so far back as the year 1826. Surely, then, it was not un-
reasonable to ask the number of persons to whom it was
sought to apply this bill of disfranchisement. Taking the
first case—that of Canterbury—the bill proposed to disfran-
chise as many as 100 or 150 individuals, and supposing the
individuals proposed to be disfranchised should hereafter
petition both houses of Parliament, and claim to be put
upon their trial before they suffered the consequences of a
conviction by law, how could the house refuse to hear
them ? (Hear.) He challenged his learned friend opposite
(the Attorney-General) to point out a single instance in the
whole history of our Legislature in which any man sought
to be disfranchsed by a bill in Parliament, except a bill of
pains and penalties, where the person sought to be punished
by that bill was not entitled to be heard with all the protec-
tion of the forms of a judicial prosecution. He could say,
without fear of contradiction, that this was the single and
unprecedented instance of a bill of pains and penalties
against a great number of individuals who had never been
put upon their trial, and had consequently had no oppor-
tunity of being heard in their defence. With regard to the
act of Parliament itself, as he had been called upon, al-
though be did not think this a fit arena for arguments of
this nature, he had no hesitation in stating his views. If
the act of Parliament were a penal act, and were so to be
construed, then he thought it was sufficiently ambiguous
in its terms to entitle the persons convicted of the offence
complained of to the indemnity insisted upon on that (the
Opposition) side of the house. First of all, the actprovided
that, upon evidence being given by any accused person,
the persons so giving evidence should be protected and in-
demnified against actions, disabilities, forfeitures, and
a number of other pains and penalties. If the act
stopped there, no doubt, all such persons would have
been fairly entitled to indemnity, but it went on to
say that they should be indemnified from all penal pro-
secutions to which they might be liable or become sub-
ject at the suit of her Majesty or any other person.
If the words, " at the suit of her Majesty or any other
person," referred, as in ordinary grammatical construction
they would, to the last antecedent—namely, to " all penal
prosecutions to which he may become liable or subject,"
then the person giving evidence was indemnified from all
pains and penalties whatsoever. But if, on the contrary,
the final words overrode the entire sentence, then, no doubt,
the construction insisted upon by the Attorney-General
was the true construction. The act at any rate was suffi-
ciently ambiguous in its terms to entitle any man to say he
had a fair reason to expect to be indemnified against pains
and penalties. (Hear, hear.) But whatever might be the
strict legal meaning of the act of Parliament, was it not in
substance a direct violation of all honour and justice if
these pains and penalties were inflicted? (Hear, hear.)
If, instead of bribery, the offence had been the crime
of high treason, and the parties had given evidence suffi-
cient to convict thorns •lves of high treason, would it be
proper for Parliament to step in and say, ".We will not
indict you for high treason, but we will bring in a bill of
pains and penalties and inflict on you the punishment
awarded to high treason, upon your own confession ?" In
such a case, would not the parties thus visited be entitled to
ask, " What is the meaning of your act of Parliament ?"
The bill was nothing more nor less than a bill of pains and
penalties, and a bill against any subject of the realm, for any
offence whatever, ought to entitle that subject to be heard
by counsel, and to undergo a trial with all the forms of law.
(Cheers.) Ho considered the bill a delusion and a deception,
and he thought he should not be charged with using too
strong language when he characterised it as a frau I.
(Cheers.) The parties who had given evidence before the
commissioners had been led to believe, and had in fact been
told, that they would not expose themselves to disfran-
chisement, and they therefore gave their evidence, under
that assurance, freely, fully, and candidly. They wore
now, however, to be told that they would be liable to no
action at law, and would suffer no action for pains and
penalties, but that at the same time they would be
punished in some other way, and would be disfranchised,
(Hear, hear.)
The house then divided :--
The numbers were—
For the motion
Against it llB
Majority
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
Mr. WALPOLE said, that after this division, he would
not oppose the other bills of which the hon. and learned
Attorney-General had given notice.
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL leave was
then given to introduce bills for the prevention of bribery
in the election of members to serve in Parliament for the
boroughs of Cambridge, Barnstaple, Kingston-upon-Hu
and Maldon.

LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS.
Mr. EWART obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend
and extend an act passed last session for enabling town-
councils to establish libraries and museums freely open to
the public. A principal object of the bill was to extend to
Ireland and Scotland the powers granted by the existing
act with regard to the establishment of libraries and
museums.

Sir J. YOUNG obtained leave to bring in a bill to en-
able the Collector-General of Rates and Taxes in Dublin to
levy money to repay a certain outlay by the corporation
for preserving and Improving the port of Dublin, in and
quay-wall of the river Liffey, and for
aboutth
j.futureYOUNGrepairing
Sir
then moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the Dublin Carriage Act.
After a few words from Mr. WHITESIDE and Mr.VANcE
leave was given to bring in the bill, which was read a first
time.

On the motion of Mr. MIIRROUGH, returns were ordered
of the names or short titles of all causes and suits, or other
proceedings or matters relating to the distribution of cha-
ritable funds or bequests in the High Court of Chancery in
England, to which her Majesty's Attorney-General has
been made a party, either as plaintiff, defendant, peti-
tioner, or respondent, within the last five years ; together
with the several amounts of all fees paid to her Majesty's
Attorney-General in all such causes and matters during
such five years; stating the nature of the proceedings on
which such fees have
been paid ; also, (where practicable)
the fund out of which, or the names of the parties to such
suit or matters by whom such fees have been paid, or
ordered to be paid, or are in fact payable.
The house then adjourned at a quarter to 12 o'clock.

Mr. WHITMORE has paired fora week with Lord MONCK.
Mr. BENTINCK paired in favour of the second reading of
the Ministers' Money Bill with Mr. PHINN against.
Mr. DUNNE was shut out on the division of Ministers'
Money.