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

cases 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 so extensive 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 places as Hull, Cambridge
and,Canterbur y. He could not, indeed, allow any con-
sideration ofjustice 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
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 would 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 he was to receive a
certificate from the commissioners, and the act went on to
provide, that on the production of such certificate he
should have 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 aot. 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 in the position he had the
honour to hold, he had felt that hi 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. He 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 were 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 adirect breach
of public faith and public honour. Mr. Cairns called upon
the house to negative the motion.
Sir J. HANMER 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 borough in 1841.
Sir John's election experiences, as detailed by himself, I
seemed to afford the house much amusement.

Mr. PHINN deprecated the introduction of personal
matters into the discussion. The question should be argued
upon general grounds, namely, having received the reports
of the commissioners, what is to be done 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 disabilities 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 man
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 he 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 high 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
this country act on a man's confession? There were parts
of the world where they might extort confession from a
man, and act upon it ; but by the law of England that
could not be done. It occurred to him that they ought to
interpret this statute as those persons who had been affected
by it would read and understand it. It was distinctly laid
down that no testimony given by a voter before the com-
missioner should be used hereafter against him. The voter,
having been examined, received his certificate, and could
not be proceeded against at law, and his vote still remained.
On what principle was it that they proposed to deprive
that person of his right to vote whom they could not sub-
ject to a criminal prosecution ? (Hear, hear.) The words
of the act were, that the person examined as a witness
touching such corrupt practices " shall be freed from all
penal actions, from forfeitures, from punishment, from
disabilities, and from incapacities." There he would stop,
for that, in his opinion, settled the question. The clause
then went on to say that he was also to be free from all
criminal prosecution to which he might be liable at the suit
of her Majesty. The fair reading of the act—for they were
not to quibble in that house as to the meaning of acts of
Parliament—was, that no persons were to be punished after
having been induced to confess. He believed this country
would always act according to the principles of strictjustice.
(Hear, hear.) The object of the act of Parliament was to
enable them to get evidence to warrant them to do what

they did in such cases as St. Albans, and to furnish them
with the means of framing a general law against bribery,
but it did not empower them to get all they could out of
witnesses, tempting them to tell all they knew, and then
to turn round upon and punish them on the ground oftheir
evidence. He did not catch from the Attorney-General
for how many years he intended to go back with the bill.
Tho 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 11 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
having put an improper question to the learned Attorney-
General.
—ear.) 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 him to say that it was no answer to tell them that
he would not condescend to reply. (Hear.)
The ATTORNEY•GENEBAL said the reason why he