The Sun.
London, England, 1809-05-16 00:00:00

Sir Joni; NewrotlT made a few observations.

Lord FoLLsTONE said, the Bill in its present state
was perfectly nugatory. He had formerly had it in
contemplation to introduce a clause into it, but on
its being pointed out to him that the clause he
thought of bringing forward would countenance the
comitauation in place of a person who had prochred
his appointment by corrupt means, in consideration
of his having afterwards even information against
others, he had not submitted it to the Committee
Ile was of opinion, that it would be proper to hold
out some inducement to persons-thus situated to in-
fo'rin againit othe'rs concerned in such corrupt prac-
tices, that some of the offenders Might be punished.
cry of move, move ! from the Opposition.)—
The Noble Loi.d concluded, expressing an inclina-
tion to make a motion to that effea..
The CHANC.M.LOR of the EXCHEQUER wished the
Bill to be made as effeetual as possible. He had no
objection to give the Noble- Lord -every opportunity
to improve it by the introduction of a new 'clause,
and he would therefore move that it.should be re;
c oinbi i t ted • •

'11)&1E11 was then ordered to be re-committed, and
the House resolved itself into a Committee.

Lord FoLKsToNB then moved', "that for every
such offence-the:party should be liable to, forfeit
and liay, the Sum of 6001. 'whiCh sum should be
given to the informer the 'conviOed offender be.
ing punished by fine and imprisonment, or by the,
one or the'other, as the Judges ShOuld direct." • •
The CHANCELLOR of the .k.otthiscitta said, as he
understood the Noble Lord intended to bring forvdard
another clause, he wished to hear that, that kriowi.
ing the substance of both,' he might be able core
correotly to judge of the measure suggested,
Lord FoLksTose, in rePly, stated it to be some-
what on theisathe principle as the clause which he
had' formerly' been indticed :to Suppress—namely,
the exonerating frOrn punishment- those who in-
fOrtned; for having participated in the offence :
though he'iFould have the party diiiabled from hold-
Inga.situation obtained thkough such improper -and
Unconstitutional influence:
The QUANcELLoa 'of the ExcHEQuett did not
think the Commitree'-uould go 'to the lengthlif the
Noble Lord's 'proposal.. Were there no other ways
of g,nioing information of such praotices; it might
be expedient to resort to'-the mokle he !tad pointed
out. ,Brat itt the pment.suitti of thinir,, he tlici nog

think it proper to hold out such a temptation to false
evidence, er to obtain true in formation by such means,
.and under such circumstances, possessing, as they
did, other . means of obtaining information, it was
unnecessary. .The temptation held out to false in-
formation, by adopting such a measure, he thought
extremely dangerous, as the artifices of an infamous
scoundrel might procure him 5001. in some in-
stances, where the pro Vision that the informer should
lose his place could do him no injury, which sum
his benefaaor, though far less culpable, might be
compelled to pay.
Mr. TIERNEY thought the objeetion of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer not a very strong one. if
the benefalor of an infamous scoundrel were liable
thus to be punished, what argument was it against
the clause ? He ought to have had nothing to do
in such an affair.
Lord FoLxs-roste observed, the Chancellor of
the' Exchequer had said it was unnecessary to
resort to such an expedient to obtain information,
as sufficient information could be derived from
other source's. This he denied, without the evi-
dence of some one concerned, to obtain infor-
mation was difficult, and perhaps in some inr
stances impossible. He never thought the Bill
would do much good, but from the view he then
had of it in its present state, he thought it might do
harm. He thought with the Honourable Gent.
that it was but fair that the patron of an infamous
scoundrel should suffer for endeavouring to advance
such a chartaer to a place of emolument or trust.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declared
his Mind was open to conviaion. The words of the
Honourable Gentleman had had some effea on him,
and if they coald satisfy him that such a measure
would be likely to benefit the country, he would
give it his support, The Noble Lord has spoken
as'if information thus gained,must be true, but that
he thought extremely doubtful. He was,of opinion
punishment would freqnently fall where it wa least ,
deserved. Men might have exerted their influence
with others to obtain a situation for scoundrels,,who
had got round them, and who might be wholly un-
known to the person who gave them their situa-
tions. Yet against that person might they give in-
formation, though no party in the Corruption. He
might have given places to various persons on the
recommendation of others, on whom he thought he
could rely, since he had been in office, -and a man
thus appointed, might, Were such a clause received,
accuse him of corruption. Information might- be
given of the wrong, and wrong or right the informer
would be rewarded. He opposed the clause, be-
cause he thought it thus objectionable; he was,
however, still open to conviaion, as it was his wish
to make the Bill as effeaual as possible..
Lord HENRY Parry knew of no information that
could be procured from accomplices. which would
not be attended with such concomitant evils.
however, thought the informer more likely to ac-
cuse the right than the wrong, tor this plain reason
—it was more ekcy to substantiate the tact in the
former case than in the latter. He thought with the
Noble Lord, that the Bill in its present state was
useless. That which it proposed to make a misde-
meanor was before punishable by law,- but no pro-
ceedings had ever been instituted against any one..
Why, because no inducements were held out to call:
forth witnesses to 'substantiate the fact and furnish'
evidence.
After a short conversation between Mr. ROSE and
Mr. PoNSoNeY,
The ATTORNEY-GENEEAL opposed the clause, on
the grounds that punishment might fall where it
was least deserved. A and B might be trafficking
for a place,
which B might obtain for A, through
the influence of C, who might be wholly ignorant
of the traffick between them. B being dead, A
might charge C with corruption, though only cul-
pable in yielding to the solicitations of B, and be-
stowing an office on a person he thought deserving
of such a situation. A might, in tact, be more
likely to accuse C than B, however culpable B might
have been ; as A and B might be supposed to be
friends, while between A and C no conneaion
whaiever might have existed.
After some further observations from Sir John
-General,
lerl
en of
fl
theth the
NLoerwdpAordtv,oMcatre. Teiterstneeytiantldie, Athtetocrnheast;
'Exchequer, the Solicitor-General, Lord Folkstone,
Mr. Croker, Mr. Horner, and Mr. Fuller,
The House came to a division upon the Amends
ment proposed by Lord Folkstone--
Ayes
Noes
Majority - —43
Strangers having , been re-admitted, the other
clauses Ore gone through. The House then resum-
ed, and the Report was ordered to be received to-
morrosy.

. .. .