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

I 7%~-~f%

that a person had stolen his watch, and it was left to the
good sense of the jury to determine.
gr. WHITESIDE should like to have a definition of the
new offence, " indirectly ask for."
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL thought the words had
better remain as they were. They formed a protection for
candidates. Half the cases in which it was alleged the
candidates had been guilty of personal corruption had
been cases in which voters had asked for something. Every
candidate was exposed to this in the course of his canvass.
The voter said, " I wish you would give my son an aps
pointraent," and it would be a great thing for the candi-
date to say, " you are asking-me for something, and that
asking involves you in a penalty."
Mr. I. BUTT did not think that their object ought to
be merely to throw protection over the candidates. What
was " indirectly asking for ?" A person might shake his
head, and that might be said to be indirectly asking for.
Mr. GOULBURN agreed with the hon. and learned
gentleman who spoke last that they ought to have some
consideration for the voters. A voter might say, " I wish
you would do something for ray son," and the candidate
might reply, " Yon have committed an offence in asking
me for that." But the offence was committed before the
reply could bsagiven, and the effect might be that the voter
would give that candidate his vote lest ho should punish
him. The protection of the candidate was sufficient in
his being able to say " My good friend, if you receive any.
thing from me, that will be an offence."
Sir J. PAKINGTON very much doubted whether any
candidate would toll a voter he had committed an offence.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought there was some value in the
clause, being copied from that which was already the law:
A declaration by parliament that such conduct was an
offence was of vsl ue.
Mr. AGLIONT.Y saw no reason why the same law
should not be applied to the voter who asked for, as well
as to the candidate who made a gift.
Mr. BALL considered that those words would make the
clause so stringent, that it would bo entirely inoperative.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE observed that the same
punishment was awarded for asking for as for receiving.
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE, and Mr.
BOOKER, in support of the amendment,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought there was some
force iu the objection that the same punishment was
awarded for asking for as for receiving, and therefore he
proposed to leave out the words " ask for," and insert them
afterwards, and impose a lighter penalty for the offence.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
On clause 3,
Lord R. GROSVENOR moved an amendment rendering
it illegal for a candidate to pay the expenses of the convey-
Alice of voters.
Mr. LIDDELL hoped the committee would not consent
to this amendment. It would have the effect of disfran-
chising nearly the whole of the voters in the outlying dig.
tricts in counties.
Mr. GOULBURN did not think this a proper place to
introduce this amendment. In a former part of the bill
they had legislated against bribery in candidates. This
meat ought to be laser 0 orineT
oflate;44lasaime etvitoktwilpa voters. This amends
park a-the bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with his right hon. friend,
that whatever might be the merits of the proposed amend-
ment, at all events it ought not to be inserted in the clause
now before the committee.
Mr. B. DENISON remarked that a proposal of this kind
would effectually disfranchise a great portion of every
county- because every one knew that unless voters were
brought up at the expense of some party or another they
would not vote.
Lord R. GROSVENOR then withdrew the amendment,
but announced his intention of taking an opportunity to
raise the question hereafter.
Clause 3 was then agreed to.
On clause 4.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he hoped they might have
some explanation as to whether the extreme severity of
this clause was necessary. He might be told that the
clause only threw together a number of enactments now
in force, but that explanation was not satisfactory. The
clause enacted that "any candidate who shall—by himself
or any other parson, at any time, before, during, or after,
any election, provide any meat, drink, or entertainment,
in order to be elected, or for being elected, or for the pur-
pose of corruptly influencing any person." He asked if-
these words would not exclude the ordinary hospitality
that might be exercised by any member of Parliament.
It seemed to him that if any member had a private dinner
party at which any person who might be his personal friend,
and who acted as his agent in the election was present he
would be liable to a penalty of 50/.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he elid not
think an innocent entertainment such as that given by a
candidate to his agents or canvassers would be considered
by any jury as coming fairly within the meaning of this
clause.
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought that the words of the
clause as they stood would be clearly liable to such a con-
struction, and thought that the words should be omitted.
Mr. WALPOLE,considered it unadvisable in any conso-
lidation of the law to omit any words likely to meet the
offence of treating, which of all others it was most desirable
to put down.

Mr. B. DENISON wished to know from the Attorney.
General whether, under this clause, it would be illegal to
give refreshment tickets to voters?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the practice
of committees differed very much as to what they consi-
dered treating. His own opinion was, however, that such
tickets would be clearly illegal, and he had no doubt what
ever that a court of law would so decide it.
Mr. B. DENISON thought it highly important that the
committee should clearly understand whether or not the
clause would have the effect of making refreshment tickets •
illegal. If it did so, it was hie opinion that one-half at least
of the electors would be practically disfranchised, for great
numbers of the poorer voters would never come to the poll
unless their expenses were paid.
Mr. STANHOPE concurred in the opinion of the injuri-
ous
effect of withholding these refreshment tickets from the
poorer class of voters,, and gave notice that at a future stage
he should move to add a clause. giving power to thereturn-
in,g officer to give tickets for refreshments not exceeding in
. value 25., upon the application of the voter, and at the
joint expense of the candidates.
Lord R. GROSVENOR disapproved of the proposal to
give refreshments, and thought that if additional polling
places wero provided there would be no difficulty in get-
ting the electors to vote.
Mr. HEADLAM believed that the clause, as it then •
stood, would tend to make the law more uncertain than
it was at present, and suggested its reconsideration.
Mr. E. DENISON could not conceive why, if a. mina-
, date giving a good dinner to his agents and canvassers was
to be construed merely as hospitality, a refreshment ticket
given to a poor voter, who had travelled .many miles to
record his vote, should be considered as corruption. (Hear.)
As there appeared to be such grave doubts on the subject,
he thought it advisable that the clause should not be
further proceeded with at present.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND observed that in legislating upon
bribery there were three questions to be dealt with,
namely, agency, travelling expenses, and refreshments.
According to the opinion of the legal authorities in the
house, they had disposed of the first, by substituting a bad •
law for a good law ; in fact, it would almost seem that
they had made the good law bad, simply because country
gentlemen could not understand the good law. (A laugh.)
They were going now to deal with the questions of tra-
velling expenses and refreshments. The former they left
just where it was, and that being so, he wanted to know
how bribery could bo stopped. Next 'came the question
of refreshments, and here it appeared they were going
to make it legal to the extent of two shillings ; but
let them make the amount as low as they pleased, the
evil would still remain, because it was through theie
refreshments that the bribery was carried on. (No, no.)
Well, he admitted there was occasionally a common, low,
vulgar, stupid' fellow into whose hand they put a guinea or
so—(a laugh)—but that was the exception, not the rule.
(Hear, hear.) Depend upon it, bribery could only be car-
ried on by these three means, and unless they wore removed
legislation would be a mere farce and waste of time.
Mr. NAPIER thought they were bound to define more
explicitly what treating was, andhe hoped the clause would
be postponed for that purpose.
Lord R,GROSVENO It saw no necessity whatever for
postponing the clause, as it simply consolidated the ousting
law of treating. There could be no doubt that refreshments
were illegal, and the only reason why , they had not been
declared so by committees was because when a contest took
place at county elections it was agreed on both sides that
refreshments should be distributed to the electors. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON did not think they ought to pass
this bill without first settling these two questions of tra-
velling expenses and refreshments, bit at the same time
he thought the best plan would be to make them the subject
of a separate bill. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with the right hoonf.keaend
learned member for Midburst as to the expediency e . keep-
ing in the bill the words of the existing acts. ?lesku!orf
William had for its object the prevention of treating_lute .
provisionth e
the
elected.issu issue
hoifswouldwih aineviiuedweauto
treating,
tip;g7onwhebtehinegr
the amount were tato shillings or one shilling, inasmuch as
the candidate being elected. The
words which he (Lord J.
3h de
ealnede t
i4the n , y, iacnt
d. ,
ael
s.
01
the
e,
Wordswere,
that treating would not be given except for the purpose of
Fubsesfeolrle),inaftrteord,uocreddeinriteghet
for the purpose of corruptly influencing
vote.nfluencinfiutltietbve voter giwvoiunlgd,.
or refraining from giving,
not be influenced in giving his vote in most cases where -
both parties at an election gave refreshment tickets. It
mieht happen. however, that one party gave very
moderate refreshments, while another might adopt a more
extravagant kind of treating, and give wine or beer to an
immenso extent, making the electors drunk, and by that
corrupt
tciantrayeienogeiehgisoeflethcteiovno .torT. That ma.popuetalrnedo
tdoouhbieit b, ehea.
words
i ode
rr
mere
ds ,s s%corrupt.thatwere
ret in
net
the
ewa wordisjunctiveds
ts
oh otewfle ed
e;
ett
the
ea
at voters oos mt e twhians
moderateg
meant.tor e
ar e
tt
Thiiilitliti
which could not possibly affect the election, would be an
offence within the act. The questionanie;:iif treating was now
before
decided t hoen he o
ways e inor theth e
°Other.' There twaosuaghgteeitdoduegahlttteo
bebe
said on both sides of the question; it was perhaps right enough
to
give some moderate refreshment to voters coming from a,
distance, but he thought that it opened a door 'to corrupt
expenditure. It was better to do away with it altogether.
Surely a voter would rather go without his dinner than not
vote for his favourite candidate ; if he did, he most pro-
bably would find some friend to give him a bit of bread and
cheese. (Laughter.) The clause as it stood forbade treat-
ing altogether, and if any words were required to make it
more clear he would. be prepared to insert them.
Sir T. D. ACLAND would support the amendment.
Lord LOVAINE said the noble lord the member for
Middlesex had used the strongest argument in favour of
allowing moderate treating when he,stated that both sides
were now obliged to adopt it by arrangement; it would be
much better for the committee to legalise so common and
necessary a practice than attempt to put it down by leg*
lation, which would be ineffectual.
have ..
a stop put- '
Mr. FOX thought it would be very easy to putedhoewnve re
practice by act of Parliament, because they "
Hearty concurrence of the working classes,
w
To look a deep
interest in the qustion, and were anxious !f..
to what was the commencement of all
retteto_waiessesauley
were
bauchery at elections. It was ridiculous I"tise,lnkceo..f atnhde digde:.
franchisement of those who woeldnot
• dragged to the poll, and not evTebnetoiheenjo:u4.l
of
fettkheYe
wheeling_ the _
prospect of meat and drink.
point ; there was not one 9
classes considered the quesftitohnemofwbhreibweryouldo
ntourt nwillionnthgli:
sacrifice a day's work to give his vote. Treating was' the
simplest form of corruption, and ought to b-e
.the first at.
said the proposed change 'would seri-
ously
tacked.
Mr . H I
affectL
theY AcEoupnt y members. By it any peen might
bring an action against them f
or every refretihmentticket - -
the
agreementTh betweea the eel:lad:4u
D-
andpro teel en- They "would have every attorney
in theytb issued,e
on their back, and they would soon disappear
wouldh
county
be-no
0
from the house, like the railway speculators.
Mr. AGLIONBY reminded,the house that the measure '
to legalise the issuing of tickets had been rejected a session" .;" ' 1
or two ago. There was great difficulty in driNving the ii ~, - _/
between innocent and corrupt treating in a bororigh with (.- . • ,
a county district attached to it. The candidate was usmi4 N . •-;--: ',
accompanied by one or two gelitio4oxi to point out. . ;lel
... .

~'