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

BILL.

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

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 altered, and such great additions had been made
to the Bill, that he deeply regretted to have to notice
them in his motion for the Speaker to leave the chair.
Colonel SIBTHORP, after an appeal to the Speaker
respecting his .competeney to address the House, and
having been answered in the affirmative, proceeded to
say that he was placed in the same unfortunate position
as that which he had lately occupied on this question,
and 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
clear of the crime of bribery, but yet, notwithstanding
all his desire to preserve the purity of that House, he
did object to the imposition of this oath, or rather these
three oaths, upon any Member taking his seat in that
House. For 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
were, 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 ho
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 wealthy 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 true there was no bribery.
Oh, no; but then there was 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 not hesitate to say
that they would altogether have opposed it. Quite
agreeing with them, he should feel it his duty to move
that the House go into Committee this day six months,
and before sitting down he could not help expressing
his utter detestation of the principle of this and 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
expected to find him among the opponents of the Bill.
For his own part, he had before stated his objec-
tion to the principle of the Bill, 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.—(Bear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said, that though anxious to
go into Committee he could not refrain from remarking
upon one observation which had fallen from the Hon.
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 eat ly 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. Speaker Abbot had taken part, and all had ap-
proved of the principle.
Mr. V. SMITH 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 iu oppo-
sition to those of Pitt and Fox, when both ►ere dead.
The Bill was entirely one of principle, and, therefore,
the House was as able to pass an opinion upon it as
the fifteen gentlemen who formed the Committee to
which it had been referred, and which had taken great
liberties with it. If the House went into Committee he
should move that all the clauses after the word
"whereas" should be omitted.
Colonel SIBTHORP withdrew his amendment, and
the House went into Committee, Mr. Bernal in the
chair.

Upon the first clause being proposed,
Lord MAHON said he had given the Bill his best
consideration, particularly with reference to the oaths
which it was proposed to impose upon Members of Par-
liament; and he felt bound to give it his decided op-
position. He was as anxious as any one to co-operate
in 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 attention was first
called to the purposed declaration to be made by candi-
dates 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.— (Hear.) Having given great atten-
tion to the whole subject, and particularly to the form
of the declaration, 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.—(Hear, 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 and punishment of the
offence than to its cause.—(Hear, hear.) All their
attempts, however, to put down the evil had signally
tailed. It was worth while considering, he thought, whether
the Bill might not be tried as an experiment. Ile 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
stated to the second reading of the Bill remained un-
changed, and he would therefore give his opposition to
the declaration that was proposed. He believed that a
declaration of this description would not effect the
object it had in view, considering that the effect of
it would be that honest and timorous men might be de-
terred from making it, although they were periectly free
from any act of bribery themselves.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, at some length, de-
fended the declaration troin the attack that had been made
against it by the nigh!, Honourable Baronet the
Secretary of State for the Home pepartment; 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 au end to the dis-
graceful scenes that had taken place at many elections?
Mr. HUME had twenty two years ago, proposed a si•
milar declaration to the one 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 nu mode of preventing the evil
but extending the suffrage, and giving the vote by
ballot.—(Cries of " Iles, 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. SMITII opposed the declaration.
(LEFT SITTING.)

STATE BALL.—The Lord Chamberlain has is-
sued invitations for a grand 61 ato hall at Bu,l;;nghtim
Palace on Monday next, the 30:h ilist., by command of
her M
The incumbency of St. James's Church, St. llary-
lebone, bas become vacant by the di•ath of the 1.: v.
Thomas White, M.A. The annual value of the benefice
is 0504 It is in the gift of the Crown.

IRELAND.
DwprArt, TUESDAT.—The accounts from all parts of
the western provinces are really deplorable. In,addi-
tion to the other evils which have fallen upon that
doomed district the cholera, we. understand, is making
fearful reveges ainoilg the poor, who are dying by scores
in their wretched huts, and even on the road side, where
in many instances the bodies have been left for whole
days without the rites of burial. That this, unksr
pily, is no exaggerated picture may be gathered from
the testimony of the Rev. James Anderson, the Protes-
tant R, ctor of Ballinrobe, in the county of Mayo, And
chaplain of the workhouse there, who, in a letter ad-
dressed to the Prime Minister, dilates with much force
upon the appalling scenes of n.isery by which he is Or'
rounded.
THE MITCHEL FUND.—The last accounts of Mr.
Mitchel's health being, according to the Home Secretary,
extremely unfavourable, a fresh stimulus appears to be
given to the interest felt on behalf of the unhappy mans
wife and children. Mr. Richard O'Gorman, sen., the
secretary of the fund, acknowledges this morning the
receipt of subscriptions to the amount of 62/..105., 311. of
which was contribut, d by one of the Dublin wards, and
301. by the town of Kilkenny.
THE FUNDS.—Three per Cent. Consols, 90i; Three"
and-a- Quarter per Cent. Stock, 914 ; Bank Stock, 193;
Hibernian Bank Shares, 24a ; Dublin and Belfast June'
tkn Railway, 91; Waterford and Limerick, 101 4•

ALLEGED FICTITioUS APPREN'

TICESBIP.

Last week memorials were presented to the master,
wardens, and court of assistants of the Vintners' Corn'
pany of the City of London, charging a member of the
court with having been concerned in a case of appren-
ticeship rendered fictitious and nominal by non-servi-
tude, for the purpose of obtaining.and using the privi-
leffes of the company. One of the memorials stated
that by charter the freemen of the company of viol'
ners were entitled to certain privileges, and among
others to keep wine taverns, and to sell by retail and
wholesale' all sorts of wine drank in their dwellings,
and that admission to the freedom by servitude can be
only obtained upon testimony of the master that,
the party applying served the full term. °l`
seven years, without fraud or deceit. That 011.
the 6th of April, 1842, a lad who resided with
his father was bound apprentice to a tradesman who was
a vintner to serve for seven years; that he continued to
live with his father during the seven years, without ever
having attended to the trade of his master, and that be
intend, d to apply to be admitted to tke freedom by set'
vitude of the company, upon the ground of his having
duly served his apprenticeship under inden-
ture; which the memorialists consider to he
contrary to the charter and to the rules and cur
toms of the company, and in direct violation of the tercis,
of the indenture of apprenticeship. The menu:wild
concluded with submitting that the applicant for the,
freedom was not entitled, and requesting that the court
would examine witnesses on the subject, and the''
admission be not granted until such evidence •
should be heard. The second memorial which geoc;
rally complains of a serious abuse of the privileges of
the company, " that of fictitious apprenticeship by
non-servitude," connived at by freemen of the coin'
pony for a valuable consideration, states that such *
practice deprived the inland revenue of the Weri
chant's annual wine license of 101. 108. se
the licensed victualler's annual retail wine license
of 21. 2s. ; that the putting down by the strong
arm of the law, carried out by the Excise authori°
ties in conjunction with the company, the old vac'
Lice of freemen lending their names for a valuable CO'l•
sideration," by fining both lender and borrower el
heavy penalties, had caused many ingenious or allies
persons to adopt this mode of fictitious apprenticeshiPd
by non•servitude. That the memorialists recominell
that an oath or some stringent system of tests be adopted'
so that the candidates for the freedom of the company'
as well as their masters, prove to the satisfaction of the
court the just and legitimate performance of their act'
vitudes according to their respective indentures of 01);
prenticesbip, or that some periodical visitation tillf
place during apprenticeship at the business premises 2
the master, in confirmation of the servitude, either it
their beadle or by some officer appointed by the court
We are given to understand that the memorialists sue
pect the matter of the memorials, which have been re,
(erred to a committee of privileges, and will be discussed
,
with closed doors, and that neither the memorialists o°'
their solicitor will be allowed to be present. It is sup'
posed that there are above 300 fictitious apprenticeshl
at the present time. In 1831 the court was thrown °Pe
for the examination of 16 cases of freemen of the cla
pany, charged with having lent their names for a value!'
consideration; and in one of these cases a wealthy
e"
merchant in the neighbourhood of Tower-street, s fr..
man of the company, was convicted of having lent b e
i
name to the keeper of that' notorious den of ti
I,A
Finish, in James-street, Covent-garden, and suspect;
from the enjoyment of the privileges of the company
°
six months.