The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-25 00:00:00

fourtt

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
(THIS DAY.)

SOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly after Twelve
o'clock.
Mr. J. MATHESON presented several petitions from
gluanc edsa
vi
Bill,
and Scotland
againstth
me a
rrißailwayarye Tv
A fanriatye Travelling on
Mr. BUSFEILD presented petitions from Bradford
preying for an alteration of the present system of licens-
ing beer-houses.
Mr. PLUMPTRE presented several petitions from
East Kent complaining of agricultural distress,
d
praying for protectia against the unrestricted importa-
tion of foreign agricultural produce.
Mr. A. HASTIE presented a petition from Paisley
against the Lunatic Asylum Bill.
Mr. FLOYER presented a petition from a place in
D se tshir e for protection to agriculture.
Mr. F. MA.CKEN ZIE presented petitions from various
parts of Scotland against the Railway Travelling on
Sunday Bill, and also against the Marriage Bill.
Mr. TOLLEMACHE presented petitions against the
Alteration of Oaths Bill.
Mr. DUNCAN presented several petitions from
Dundee against the Railway Travelling on Sunday Bill.
Mr. P. WOOD presented a petition from Liverpool in
&your of the Affirmation Bill.
Lord EBRINGTON presented petitions from Ply-
mouth and other places in favour of the Clergy Relief

Bill.
Mr. COWAN presented petitions from various parts
of Scotland against the Sunday Railway Travelling Bill.
Mr. BANKES presented a petition from the Arch-
deaconry of Dorset against the Parliamentary Oaths
Bill, and the admission of Jews into Parliament.
Mr. FOX MAULE presented several petitions from
different parts of Scotland against the Sunday Travelling
on Railways Bill.
Sir D. DUNDAS presented petitions from Sather-
landshire to the same effect.
Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from the Lord
Mayor, aldermen; and burgesses of Dublin in favour of
the Rate in Aid Bill.
Sir G. GREY presented petitions from Berwick-upon-
Tweed against the Sunday Travelling on Railways Bill.
MARRIAGE WIT.II THE SISTER OF A DE-
CEASED WIFE.
Mr. LANGSTON presented several petitions in
flyour of an alteration of the present law.
SUNDAY TRAVELLING.
Mr. MAC3REGOR, Mr. LANGSTON, and several other
Members presented petitions from Glasgow and several
other places, against the Bill to allow travelling on rail-
ways on Sunday.
FRAUDS IN THE SALE OF BREAD.
Mr. BANKES gave notice that he should, on Wed-
nesday next, move that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the whole House, with a view to take the
necessary means to prevent the frauds now practised in
the sale of bread.
ATTORNEYS AND SOLICITORS (IRELAND)
BILL. .

This Bill was read a second time without division or
observation, and was ordered to be committed this day
week.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the motion that the House go into Committee on
this Bill,
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that the Bill had been so
much eltered, and such great additions had been made
to the Bill, that ho deeply regretted to hare to notice
them in his motion for the Speaker to leave the chair.
Colonel SIBTH.ORP, after an appeal to the Speaker
respecting his competency to :address the House, and I
having been answered in the affirmative, proceeded to
hay that he was placed in the same unfortunate position
us that which ho had lately occupied on this question,
un 1 which he had been obliged to take up with respect
to all these Bills. So far as the principle of these Bills
was really concerned, he might say that it had in reality
been, to use a vulgar phrase, completely " burked."—
(Hear, hear.) No Member of that House could more
truly assert than he could that his hands were perfectly
cb-nr of the crime of bribery, but yet, notwithstanding
all his desire to preserve the purity of that House, he
did object to the impaiition of this oath, or rather these
three oaths, upon tiny Member taking his seat in that
House. Fcr those persons who attempted to be re-
turned as the representatives of places or districts in
which they were perfectly unknown, who dropped, as it
we-e, from the skies, such precautions might be
necessary. They had no hold whatever upon
the respect of their fellow-citizens, and might be
compelled to resort to the practice of bribery. But he
did not conceive that because there was this danger to
be guarded against, that the Bill should be so framed as to
interfere with the kindly offices between a landlord and
his tenantry, or between a weeiehy man and his poorer
neighbours.—(Hear, hear.) They all knew how adroitly
agreements were made between a regular supporter of
any Government who desired to obtain a baronetcy or
any other honour. It was 1, rue. there was no bribery.
Oh, no; but then there wee a journey to Greenwich
or to Portsmouth, and the thing was easily arranged.
What would Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox have said about the
principle of this Bill? Why, he did aot hesitate to say
that they would altogether heve opposed it. Quite
agreeing with them, he should feel it his duty to move
that the }louse go into Committee this day six months,
and b. fore sitting down he could not help expressing
his utter detestation of the principle of this end all
similar Bills.
Sir G. GREY said, that after the set speech which
the Hon. and Gallant Colonel had made on the motion
for the second reading, he certainly had not himself
ex p, tied to find him among the opponents of the Bill.
Fer his own part, he had before stated his objec-
tien to the principle of the Bil!, and though ho was not
now opposed to the Bill going into Committee, yet
he reserved to himself the right of endeavouring either
to alter or to throw it out in a future stage.—(Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, that though anxious to
go into Committee ho could not refrain from remarking
upon one observation which had fallen from the lion.
and Gallant Member for Lincoln, viz , that in which he
had spoken of the opinions of Pitt and Fox. Whatever
the opinions of those great men might have been he
could not say, but this was no new notion which he de-
sired to place upon the legislative records of the country.
As early as 1809 Mr. Curwen had introduced a Bill pre-
cisely analogous in its principle to that which he now
desired to carry. The oath introduced by Mr. Curwen
was open to grave objections, but in the debate which
ensued Mr. :Wilberforce, Mr. Canning, Mr. Tierney, and
Mr. Spealur Abbot had taken part, and all had ap-
proved of the principle.
Mr. V. SMITII said that it was strange that the Hon.
Member who was the promoter of this Bill, in reply to
his opponent, had cited the opinions of parties in oppo-
sition to those of Pitt and Fox, when both were dead.
'The Bill was entirely one of principle, and, therefore,
t 1 e 17ouse was as able to pass an opinion upon it as
the fifteen gehtlemen who formed the Committee to
which it had been referred, and which bad taken great
liberties with it. If the House went into Committee be
ehouNl wove that all the clauses after the word
herers" :,.hould be omitted.
Colcre,l SIBTIIOIIP withdrew his amendment, and
the Thus° went into Committee, Mr. Berual in the

chair.
Upon the first clause being proposed,
Lord MAHON said he had given the Bill his best
consideration, part:culerly with reference to the oaths
which it was proposed to impose ucon mhers of Par-
liament; arid he felt bound to give it his decided op-
pwition. He was as aexious as any one to co-operate
iu any attempts, to put a stop to corrupt practices at elec-
tions, but the present measure was so involved that he
thought it would entirely fail in its object.
Sir F. THESIGER said when his attenticn was first
called to the par peed declaration to Le made by candi-
da.V:s at the hustings, and by Members before taking their
seats in the House, very great.objections occurred to his
mind, some of which had been stated by Honourable
Members who had addressed the House, and he
thought that if persons were disposed to violate
the law, they would not hesitate to take the declaration;
while, on the other hand, timid and scrupulous persons
might refuse to do so from an apprehension only that it
might afterwards involve them in circumstances of an
unpleasant nature.— (lean) Having given great atten-
tion to the whale subject, and particularly to the form
of the dechiration,he had brought himself to the convic-
tion that it was absolutely necessary that some experiment
should be made to try and accomplish that object, which
they all had in view.—(llear, hear.) They had ex-
pressed, in most sincere terms, a desire to suppress
bribery and corruption ; but they had not pursued the
right course in their legislative measures, and their
acts 'had not corresponded with their profes-
sions. Committees had been armed with great
power to investigate charges of bribery; but more regard
had been shown to the detection an punishment of the
offence than to its cause.—(llear, hear.) All their
attempts, however, to put down the evil had signally
failed. It was worth while considering, he thought, whether
the Bill might not be tried as an experiment. He did
not think that there was anything in the declaration
which would deter any conscientious man from taking it
either at the hustings or at the table of the House'
Sir GEORGE GREY said that the objections he had
of the B
stated to the second readingremained un-
changed. and he would therefore give his opposition to
the declaration that was propdsed. He believed that a
declaration of this description would' noteffect the
object it had in view, considering that the
it would be that honest and timorous men mightffbeectdre'f
de-
terred from making it, although they were pertectly free
from any act of bribery themselves.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, at some length, de-
fended the declaration from the attack that had been made
against it by the Right Honourable Baronet the
Secretary of State for the Home Department; and
trusted that the House, notwithstanding that attack,
would adopt it. He would put it to the House whether
the time had not arrived to put an end to the dis-
graceful scenes that had taken place at many elections?
Mr. HUME bad twenty two years ago, proposed a si-
milar declaration to the ono now proposed, and he had
failed in carrying it. He now believed that all attempts
at legislation on this subject would, as they had hitherto
done, fail. He saw no mode of p eventing the evil
but extending the suffrage, and giving te evil
but
ballot.—(Cries of " Hear;
hear.") That was his remedy,
As regarded the Bill, he should oppose it as he had done
all such measures on the subject. . ,
Mr. V. SMITEI opposed the declaration.
Mr. NEWDEGATE also objected to the declaration
upon the principle that it would have the effect of bring•
jeg all declarations into contempt.
Lord J. RUSSELL felt bound to vote against the
clause, expressing his opinion that the Dill would not