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

making a statement, he concluded by asking whether
her Majesty's Government would send out a despatch
for cancelling the appointment of Mr. Stonor, a com-
mittee being pendinz to inquire into the circumstances.
Lord J. RUSSELL protested against the course
which the noble lord had taken of moving the adjourn.
ment of the house, and then went on to say that the
motion for the committee would be made on Thurs-
day, when the Government would be quite ready
to accede to it. All the circumstances touching
the appointment would then come before the com-
mittee, and the house would find that the recom-
mendations of Mr. Stonor were entirely of a legal
and professional nature, and that it was quite an
oversight of the noble duke at the head of the colonial
department in nut being aware of the report which had
been made against Mr. Stonor. He trusted, however,
that the committee would make no recommendation that
the appointment should be confirmed, although it might
be a case of great hardship on Mr. Stonor, but the real
state of the matter was this. The appointment had been
made in Victoria, but when it came home for confirma-
tion the noble duke would decline to confirm it on the
part of her Majesty.
STATUTE LAW COMMISSION'.
Mr. BOW YER asked what course Government pro-
pose.l to pursue with respect to the Statute Law Conso-
lidation Commission, whether it was to be renewed or
allowed t,) drop with all its valuable labours incomplete.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that as the Attorney-
General was not in the house be was unable to answer
the question ; but he understood his learned friend had
been in communication with the Lord Chancellor on the
subject.

NEW REFORM BILL.
Sir E. DERING give 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 last.
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. BELLY 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 bilk ought to be conaidered together, but it
was impossible to do that in cormnittee 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 reach 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 great deal of hypocrisy in this.
(Hear, hear.) People thought that hon. members found
it as 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 cut the serious penalty of depriving a man of
his qualification for life, arid 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, had 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 exclusion from public life ? (Rear.) There
would be a difficulty 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 migat be done by themselves. One gentleman had
admitted before a conamitt e that he purposely refused
to look at any vouchers, If candidates would directly
discourage every species of bribery arid undue influence,
that would do more than anything else to put an end to
the system. It should to remembered that their object
was not backed by any strong feeling among the consti•
tuencies. In one ca.iie the committee found that it was
not poverty by any means which induced the acceptance
of bribes ; men renting houses of 201. or 301. had taken
then as readily as occupiers of 101. houses. Any violent
legislation must fail, as in the case of smugglers or
poachers, undl the same feeling was excited in the public
mind against the offence as existed in that house. He
could not recognise the distinction taken by the bill be-
tween bribery and undue iefluence. 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 an I what was due influence. He con-
cluded by moving that the bill should be referred to a
s lect c immittee, in the hope that it would be promptly
proceeded with.
Mr. DEED Eli seconded the amendment, and ex-
pressed the difficulty which he felt in dealing with the
three measures sep irately, all of which related more or
less to elections. Ho 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
nine 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 hou. 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 be 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 hills for which differen

provisio • ns were made; and the house would have no
lifficulty 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 he intro‘luced. 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
previsions 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 oould 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 poesib!y be on the select com-
mittee, that considerable time must be occupied in dis-
euesing the bills ie committee of the whole house. They
would hardly reach the House of Lords before a very late
period of the seseion, 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 .vas diepesed to entertain the bills. (Rear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman said he objected to many of
but the house_fit found that too severe
in committee could en-
.
ttehretairinprot%hiosisoen(s,h ,
j•
actions, I
penalties were affixed to persona committing the offence
of bribery, that surely was a question of principle to be
, •
considered in committee a
fi in favour of more lenient
the whole house ; and they
might decide if they saw
penalties. There was no pract:cal 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 ;he 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
senitdirn.gwthAeLbpillos
Lbt said he herhaniditoteneatiP formeratairgo.ccasion
pa se hea
t
in-
timated that he should not interfere with the course
pro-
posedshout toee
certainly
takennlyhave been
byti
stronglyie oble
oflo opinion
in;ioh otherwtht great
advantage might be derived from a lull 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 course which might appear to have
the object of preventing the measure from 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 ; he proposed to
take Sir F. Kelly's bill second in order, relating as it
did to the same subject, the prevention f bribery, and
to postpone the controverted clauses in his own bill.
Another reason for 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 he should be
under the necessity of proposing as amendments on this
bill.

Cat SUZZOS.? PA that with marl.bribery ik)