The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-31 00:00:00

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.

Lord STANLEY said he felt it his duty to make one
or two observations on this Bill, which he was surprised '
to find down in the paper for a second reading, in the ab-
sence of the Noble Lord who was to have moved for it.
Lord MILFORD at this moment entered the House,
and immediately moved the second reading of the Bill,
observing that their Lordships could not fail to approve
of the principles of the Bill.
Lord STANLEY rose again, and resuming his obser-
vations said, that if he wanted any motive for the motion
he was about to make, he could find it in the inability
of the Noble Lord opposite to explain the provisions of
the Bill he had moved in so unprecedented a manner.
Their Lordships were aware that on Friday last it was
announced that the prorogation would take place on
Tuesday or Wednesday next, and that for the purpose of
facilitating the prorogation of Parliament their Lordships
sat on Wednesday and Saturday, contrary to their usual
practice, and went through a great number of Bills with
great rapidity on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
On Friday it was understood that they had full notice
of all measures which it was intended to submit to die •
cussion in the present session, and under that impresion
many Noble Lords, himself amongst them, left London
on. Saturday, fully confident that no surprise would be
attempted by introducing a measure without notice. O❑
Saturday the Noble Lord undertook, without notice, to
move the second reading of a Bill which did not stand,
on the orders of the day, and he was astonished that her
Majesty's Government, instead of showing themselves
as he held it was their duty to do, the protectors of
Parliament against surprise of this kind, not only
sanctioned the attempt at a second reading, but allowed
notice to be given for that day of a suspension of the
standing orders. The standing orders ought only to be
suspended in cases of national importance, but besides
the want of any such importance in this instance, the Bill
itself was not only vicious in principle, but vicious in
detail, and full of all sorts of faults and imperfections.
He was sure the Noble Lord who moved the second
reading of the Bill could not have made himself ac-
quainted with its provisions, which were of a most ob-
jectionable character.
Lord BROUGHAM—Monstrous.
Lord STANLEY—One of them was, that if a decla-

ration were made by the Committee of the House of
Commons, that an elector had been guilty of bribery, he
became !or life incapable of voting, and his name was to
be published from one county to another, stigmatized
with the character attaching to him inconsequence. At
the same time the rich Member, who might have been
guilty of bribery by wholesale, was only incapacitated
horn sitting in the Parliament for which he offered him-
self. These proceedings, too, might be conducted against
any individual without notice, and he might be quite
unable to stand the expense incidental to a Committee
of the House of Commons. Under these impressions he
felt it to be his duty to hasten up from the country, if
possible, to prevent the passing of the Bill.
Earl GREY said that if he were disposed to discuss
the provisions of the Bill it would be easy for him to
show that the Noble Lord had mistaken them. He
would admit at once that this was not a Bill which
ought to pass in the present session; and the explanation
he had to give of the circumstance of its being now
brought forward was, that the Noble Lord made the
motion for another Noble Lord who was absent, and
that he understood it to be a mere matter of form.

Lord BROUGH AM said he quite disapproved of tho
principles of the Bill, which actually permitted a man to
be convicted without notice of trial, or if even with
notice, perhaps without the chance of making a sufficient
defence.

Lord MILFORD explained that he had merely taken
charge of the Bill for another Noble Lord.
Atter a few words from Lord REDESDALE,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE assured the Noble
Lord (Lord Stanley) that the Bill was not a Government
measure.

The motion for the second reading of the Bill was ne-
gatived without a division.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE rose to move for copies of
any communications which may have passed between her
Majesty's Government and the Governments of f ifeign
powers, in consequence of the passing of the Bill for the
repeal of the navigation-laws. The Noble Lord said
that the Government ought to state what course it in-
tended to pursue in respect to foreign powers as re-
garded the measure to which he had referred.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord then proceeded to read extracts
from communications made by this Government with
foreign Governments in respect to the operation of the
navigation-laws. We ought to know what•concessiens
other countries intended to make for the advantages
which we opened to them by the relaxation of the navi-
gation-laws. France would receive no little benefit from
the alteration made in these laws. Why, then, should
we not ask France to make concessions to us? Then,
again, with respect to the United States, he begged to
observe that we had formerly great advantages in respect
to our colonial trade; but these advantages were now
given up by the alteration made in the navigation-laws,
and the United States would reap all the benefit of these
alterations. This being so, he thought they ought to
know how far the United States were disposed to re•
ciprocate with us on the subject. He thought it right
that they should have some information on the subject.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, it was impos-
sible that her Majesty's Government could give any in-
formation on the subject refared' to, as they had not
time to make communications with foreign countries in
relation to the Navigation Bill. But they had commu-
nication with parties in this country connected with
foreign countries, with the view of carrying forward a
principle of reciprocity, and in due time communication
would be made with the Powers themselves, and he
hoped a satisfactory result would be the consequence.
The motion was withdrawn, and the conversation
dropped.
Lord BROUGHAM gave notice of his intention to
bring a motion before their Lordships, the object of
which was to facilitate the progress of Bills through
Parliament.
After a short conversation between Lord Brougham,
Lord Redesdale, and the Marquis of Lansdowne, it was
agreed that the House should meet pro forma at half-
past twelve o'clock to-morrow (this day) and then
adjourn during pleasure.
On the motion of the Marquis of CLANRICARDE,
the Workhouse Loans (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE proposed that the
Commons' amendments to this Bill be agreed to. The
House of Commons had manifested a great desire to
meet the wishes of that House in respect to this Bill, and
they had adopted many of the amendments made to the
Bill by their Lordships, and had only disagreed to a few
of them. The Noble Marquis briefly explained the
effect of the proposed alterations, and concluded by
moving the adoption of the amendments of the House
of Commons.
Lord STANLEY said, the manner in which the
Commons had waived their privileges, and bad not in-
sisted upon extreme points, demanded from the House
the most attentive consideration ; and he, therefore,
thought they ought to agree to those amend-
ments maintained by the Commons. There was one
which he thought they ought to disagree with, which
was that which authorised the recovery of rates in
the superior courts.
Their Lordships then proceeded to consider the amend-
ments seriatim.
Upon the amendments to the 17th, 18th, and 19th
clauses being considered,
Lord MONTEAGLE objected to the power of reco-
very of rates in the superior courts. He said these
rates had been always hitherto recovered by civil bill
process, and this was what was recommended by their
Committee up-stairs. This was the first time that the
rates were thrown upon the owners of the land. There
was no such remedy provided in the first or second poor-
law for Ireland. By this provision a summary judg-
ment might be obtained in the superior court against the
estate when a decree for arrears of rates had been re-

gistered in the superior court, and this judgment, when
°TIPP esb,t+.lllPa. t'e nriorlty ovory otl-sor flit,r7P- 0,0
r, .. • . •
p sea to knii moimy upon Irish ,:sta!es with e.uch inde-
finite hens as this enactment might make upon the land
with the privilege of priority of charge against all other
charges and settlements. He concluded by moving that
their Lordships should insist upon the amendment which
they had made to this clause of the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL said the objections of the Noble
Lord consisted in two points; first, that the Bill gavo a
power to recover rates in the first instance in the supe-
rior.cuurts; and the second was, that a decree of the
Assistant Barrister, being registered, might he enforced
by a judgment of the superior court. Nov this assumsd
that the Bill extent-led the liability of the landlord,
whereas in it his liability was limited by it, for the 20th
clause limited his liabilities for arrears to two years,
whereas heretofore the liability was unlimited. It bad
been always held in law that poor-rate was a debt, and
was the first charge on the laud. In Scotland a trades-
man could levy the arrviunt of a debt off the land, and he
saw no injustice in levying for the amount of poor rate
off the lands in Ireland.

Lord STANLEY opposed the retention of the clauses
as being most unjust in principle, and liable to inflict
great hardship on individuals by making them liable for
the arrears of others. Ile complained of the new prin-
ciple introduced into the Bill as not found in the English
Bill, namely, that which directs that the poor-rate should
not be levied off the produce of the lands or off the
rents, but off the lend itself.
Earl GREY contended that the Bill created no new
liability on the landlords whatever; on the contrary,
they were only liable for two years' arrears, whereas by
the existing law they were rendered liable for all ar-
rears due.