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

NEW REFORM BILL.

Sir E. DERING gave notice that on Monday next
he would ask the noble lord the member for the city of
London, whether he intended to move the second read-
ing of the Reform Bill on the 27th inst.

BRIBERY, &c., BILL.

On the order of the day for the committal of this bill,
Lord J. RUSSELL, in moving that the Speaker do
leave the chair, appealed to the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Suffolk to allow his bill to come on next, and
before the Controverted Elections Bill.
Sir. F. KELLY was understood to assent to the
proposal. •
Mr. V. SMITH then moved as an amendment that
the bill be referred to a select committee, announcing
that if this amendment was carried he should move that
the other two bills be referred to the same committee.
The three bills ought to he considered together, but it
was impossible to do that in committee of the whole
house, and hence arose the necessity for a select com-
mittee, where all the three bills could he discussed
together and ultimately consolidated into one effective
measure. Several points embraced in the other bills
were omitted from that of the noble lord. This showed
the impossibility of considering the measures apart ;
and there was not time to take them in succession on
the same evening. One important matter was that
neither of the bills had any provisions relating to agents,
not legal agents, but those mysterious persons who went
about telling people to open their hands and shut their
eyes and see what they could get. (Laughter.) These
were the real authors of the mischief, and yet there was
no provision to roach them. The proper course would
be to refer all the bills to a committee up-stairs. It
might be said they would still have to be discussed by
the house, but this would be done much more conve-
niently after an investigation before a select committee.
They should then know what they could do, and how
the evil could be reached. An enthusiasm against
bribery had arisen that session such as was never shown
before ; but out of doors the feeling very widely pre-
vailed that there was a gi eat deal of hypocrisy in this.
(Hear, bear.) People thought that hon. members found
it an easy virtue to disclaim against that bribery of
which, owing to the interposition of agents, they could
not possibly be convicted. It behoved them, therefore,
to proceed cautiously, and not rashly to inflict such
penalties as were given by the noble lord's bill. Could
they carry ~ut the serious penalty of depriving a man of
his qualification for life, and would the public go with
them in such a course? Suppose that, in early life,
Lord John Russell himself, when party feeling was
much higher than now, bad been deprived by the vote
of a parliamentary committee of his se..t for life ; and he
had subsequently displayed the abilities for legislation
which he possessed, would the public have acquiesced in
his perpetual exclu,ion from public life ? (Hear.) Tnere
would be a, difEculty in finding prosecutors ; for who
would come forward in such a case where the result
might be to deprive a man of the chance of ever again
being elected ? It became both the convenience and the
honour of the house to proceed cautiously in such a mat-
ter,
lest they should do more harm than good. A great
deal might be done by themselves. One gentleman had
admitted before a committ-e that he purposely refused
to look at any vouchers. If candidates would directly
discourage every species of bribery and undue influence,
that would do more than anything else to put an end to
the system. It should be remembered that their object
was not backed by any strong feeling among the consti-
tuencies. In one case the committee found that it was
not poverty by any means which induced the acceptance
of bribes ; men renting houses of 201. or V. had taken
them as readily as occupiers of 10/. houses. Any violent
legislation must fail, as in the case of smugglers or
poachers, until the same feeling was.excited in the public
mind naiad thle offence as existed in .112atIouse. He