The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-22 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT•

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Feb. 21.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
AREA OF TAXATION.
Mr. RAWES presented a petition from Kinsale,
Praying that the area cf taxation for the purposes of the
poor-law may not be reduced.
CASE OF THE REV. MR. SHORE.
Mr. COWPER presented a petition from Hertford
calling the attention of the House to the case of the Rev.
Mr. Shore, and praying that religious liberty may be
extended to clergymen seceding from the Established
Church.

TAXATION.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Leith, signed
by a vast number of the inhabitants, praying that all
useless offices under Government may be abolished, and
that in the present state of the revenue no more taxation
may be levied than is requisite to support the really
useful establishments of the country.
THE GAIIE-LAWS.

Mr. COWAN presented a petition adopted at a meet-
ing of certain of the citizens of Edinburgh, calling them-
selves the National Anti-Game-law Association, pray-
ing for the total and unconditional repeal of the laws
relating to game.
THE IRISH POOR-LAW.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE presented a petition from the
board of guardians of Dungarvon, praying for certain
alterations in the poor-law.
MINISTERS' MONEY IN IRELAND.
The Horn. BARONET also presented a petition from
Drogheda, praying for the abolition of ministers' money
in Ireland ; and also a petition from the same city
praying that no toll-gates may be erected in certain
localities of the town.
INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH AND FRENCH

ASSOCIATION.
Mr. B. COCHRANE gave notice that to-morrow he
would put a question to the Hon. Member for Tewkes-
bury, to the Hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, to
the Hon. Member for Pontefract, to the Hon. Member
for Macclesfield, and to the Hon. Member for South-
ampton, respecting an International English and French
Association.
THE COAST OF AFRICA.
Mr. HUME gave notice that to-morrow he would ask
the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in
what state:the negotiations"with the French Government
are with respect to keeping a squadron on th© coast o
Africa.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, in rising to move the
second reading of the Bribery at Elections Bill, said it
was necessary for him to make some statement of the
views which he entertained upon the subject to which the
measure bad reference. He could assure the House that
he was fully aware of the importance of the subject, but
he was no less sensible that after the notorious corruption
which prevailed duriiag the general elections of 1841 and
1842, the subject assumed a aew degree of most pressing
importance. If the House would be kind enough
to grant him its attention, he would be
enabled to show that the present law against
bribery was quite insufficient for the object which
it sought to accomplish. • He was desirous to solicit the
attention of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), who had
given his praiseworthy attention to the subject and un-
derstood it so well, and he begged to assure him
that he did not desire to undervalue or depreciate
his exertions. The Noble Lord had introduced
two valuable Acts against bribery, one in 1841, and
another in 1842, but they had proved altogether insuf-
ficient. He did not mean to say that the present law
was not severe, but he wished to show to the House
that a great deal of it was quite inoperative,
and for the reason that under it punishment for
bribery was actually dependent upon the presentation
of election petitions--(Hear)—and wherever extensive
bribery prevailed there were such powerful combina-
tions that parties were deterred from presenting them.
lie would briefly call attention to the existing law
against bribery and corruption. Towards th end
of the reign of Charles 11. and James 11.
attempts were made to legislate on the subject, and in the
7th year of the reign of William 111. an Act was passed
which was known as the Treating Act, under which the
present system of Election Committees originated. An-
other Act was passed in the 2d of George 11., which
was known by the name of the Bribery Act, and
was very stringent in its provisions, but
it was virtually a dead letter upon the
statute-book. On those two Acts they had mainly
depended until 1841, when the Noble Lord brought in
one of the two Acts to which he had referred, and
which gave Committees power to take evidence of
bribery before agency was proved. The other
Act was introduced in 1842, and it was di-
rected particularly to compromises. But both
those Acts, however good in themselves, did not
come into operation unless a petition was presented to
Parliament. It provided, that after the presentation of
a petition no compromise should be entered into; but,
with regard to any ...promise previous to that, it took
ao aetiee.--(llear, hear.) There was, by another part
of that Act, power given to electors, in certain casee, to
petition that House against instances of bribery ; but in
the first place, in consequence of parties so petitioning
being required to enter into recognizances of 1,0001. to
substantiate the charge, and, in the next place, that
if the charge was not made out before the Committee
those parties were liable to the costs, the Act of the
Noble Lord—taking also into consideration the odium
that usually attached to such petitions—became quite
inoperative. At the present moment there was a Bill
pending in another place on the subject, and the same
defects that he had pointed out existed in that Bill
which were in the measure that had been introduced
last year, namely that of appointing a Commission to put
down bribery and corruption; and it had the same
detect that he had pointed out in the Bills
of the Noble Lord, that you must not only
have the petition presented, but you must have the
Committee appointed before the provisions of the
Bill could be brought into operation.—(Hear, hear.)
Heswas in a condition to give the House something more
than a mere opinion upon this subject. He must ask
lion. Members to repose in him a certain degree of con-
fidence. The particulars of some contests at the last
general election had been placed at his disposal, under a
promise that he would not divulge the names of the
parties or of the boroughs. He would give the House
his honourable assurance that he would not state any
fact which he was not able to establish. In the first
borough, which he would call borough A, there were
between 1,000 and 2,000 electors—he avoided naming
the exact number, for a reason that must be obvious—
and he could state that nearly all the electors were ac-
cessible to bribery.—(Hear, hear.) The exceptions
consisted of the banker, the clergyman, some lawyers
(Cries. of " No, no," and laughter)—and a few other
respectable inhabitants. The usual amount of the bribe
was from four to five pounds a head. He had some very
curious papers in his possession; among them was an ad-
dress to the candidate, signed by several of the electors,
openly asking him what were the terms he intended to
give. After the election the voters went to a particu-
lar place and received a certain sum, or double that
sum, according as they had given single or double votes.
At the recent election many hundreds of the electors
were polled on one side, and the votes of 13 out of every
14 so polled were bought with money. At the election
of 1841 the sum expended in that borough for the cor-
ruption of voters was 7,000 L, and in 1847 the amount so
applied was 8,000/. His informant observed that " the
effects of corruption at were most demoralizing.
The hospital was filled with men maimed and bruised
and maddened with drink." He would mention another
case. In that borough which he would call B the con-
stituency was also between 1,000 and 2,000. At the
general election in 1847 out of every 28 persons that
polled 17 sold their votes. The average rate of the
bribe was 101., 121., and 151. a-head; but later in the a
Y the price of a vote rose to 501., and before the
close of the poll one or two individuals received 100/.
for their votes.—(Hear, hear.) To show the contami-
ntetip.g
.and demoralizing influence of this system of
corruption where it extensively prevailed, be was sorry
to state that master tradesmen and professional gen-
tlemen were not above taking a price for their votes.
The aggregate sum paid at that election for the purchase
of votes was 13,0001. He had received some general in-
formation with respect to two or three other places
-where the same system notoriously prevailed. He asked
the House whether such a state of things ought to
con-
tinue, and whether ho had not made out a case for
the measure he was now proposing?—(Hear, hear.)
Was.this vile system of bribery to continue unchecked
and uncontrolled?—(Hear, hear.) In no one of the
ease* he had mentioned was any petition brought before
the House. How could it be expected? The losing candi-
date avoisid not petition because he would be involved in
the same circumstances which he would be seeking to
theaw on another; and the electors would not petition,
be cause they had a common :interest in concealing
t) se common guilt. He (Sir J. Pakington) was
'Perfectly convinced that if it were their desire
to put an end to this system they must turn to
arnzle'othf.r remedy than that of petitioning Parliament.
It had been said that wholesale disfranchisement was the
only rentedyfor this disease, he could not agree with any
such proposition ; it had been tried, and it had been
shown that it had not acted as a warning
to
He o those who had been guilor of bribery.
spoke upon this subject with great deference to those
experienced statesmen who had sanctioned that !system ;
but it had long been his opinion that disfranchisement
was an unjust and an unwise course. It was unwise be-
cause the tendency of the present day was to increase
popular rights; and it was unjust because it punished the
innocent with the guilty; and it punished posterity for
the sins of those who were now alive. And how was it
attempted to be justified? Why, upon the ground that
they were holding out a warning to others. But had it
ever been effectual as a warning? He believed not. How
!veld it be expected when a poor man beheld the tempts-
t.on of a bribe in the hands of a rich man that he would
pause and consider that in some distant county at some
remote period bribery had been punished as a crime?
Last year Yarmouthwasdisfranchised because 16 voters
of bribery. had been guilty Hand he (Sir J. Pakington)
been in the House at thet
against the injustice of thatnie proceeding.ewonld havlenp ther protested
pre-
ceding year Sudbury was disfranchised for bribery.row, Yarmouth was in Norfolk, and Sudbury wasn
Suffolk. If disfranchisement acted as a warning, why
was not Sudbury a warning to Yarmouth? But no, the
example and warning of Sudbury, although in the ad-
joining
county, was forgotten. They must not trust,
then, either to disfranchisement or to election petitions
as a remedy, but if they were earnest in their efforts to
stop these practices they must legislate in a new three-
tion. Instead of aiming at the poor voter they must
aim at the more guilty party, those by whom the voter
was corrupted.—(Hear, hear.) In ,the cases which he
had mentioned, would any one tell him that the candi-
dates were innocent of tha bribery committed? No man
could think so ; and he would tell the House plainly
that it was not so. It was impossible. He admitted
that cases might arise, such as where a father brought
forward his son, or a political leader his partizan, in.which