The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-06 00:00:00

upon his estate, without his being deemed an immoral
or a prtfligate man? The qtiestion was, was the evil of
such nalgditude and such recurrence as to demand such
a rernedj ? It was petit ctly easy for a rich man to be in-
dependent, but he (Mr. Bernal) was not sure that it was
so easy tor a poor man to be so; yet there were men in
that House who were not opulent. Hebelieved it wasa very
popular thing to support this Bill; he cared not for
that; he dared to oppose it. They were importing a
much more contingent danger for the sake of removing
a less contingent mischief, by means of this Bill. Who
had a right to go round that House and measure the
moral conduct of each individual Member?—(Hear,
hear.) He contended that it would not be possible to
work this Bill to any useful purpose. He had heard
so little complaints of Members availing themselves
of the privileges of Parliament, that he looked on the
mischief as too small to make him dare to encounter
the mischief that would ensue from this Bill.—(Hear.)
Captain lIARRIS thought, without the machinery of
the Bill before the House, its object would have been
attained by protecting Members during the recess of
Parliament.

Mr. MULLINGS said he had supported the Bill be-
cause it would affect those who were wanting in one of
the main qualifications for a seat in that House. The
law was quite inoperative against Members of that
House who did not choose to pay their creditors, ualtss
they were engaged in trade. With respect to the state-
ment of the lion. Member for Rochester (Mr. Bcrual)
that a person might be the o sner of an estate
which Ras heavily mortgaged in consequence of the acts
of his ancestors, he wished to observe that no order
could be made by the Bankruptcy or Insolvent Courts
for the payment of claims in consequence of these ancient
debts.
Mr. BERNAL explained that he meant that a person
so situated could not go into the City and raise money.
Mr. MULLINGS said then let him give security to his
creditors.—(Elear, hear.) His experience convinced
him that a man thus situated could not act independently
in that House._

Sir T. COLEBROOKE said the Bill depended
so much upon its details, that he trusted the House
would lose no time in going into Committee to discuss
them. He should support the B►ll.
Mr. STITAIIT was opposed to the Bill, because it
would interfere with the independence of the Members
Of that House. Fur initance, the Bill provided
that a Member might be made a bankrupt on the peti-
tion of one of his creditors. Nov what would be the
position of a Member so situated? In order to avoid
so unpleasant a proceeding his vote would, as a
natural consequence, be under the control of that cre-
ditor.—(Hear, hear.) He deeply regretted that the
creditors of any Hon. Member should be injured, but
there were paramount considerations, in which the cha-
racter of that House was involved, which must not be
List sight of.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... 55
Against it ... ... 45

Majority in favour of it ... —lO
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to
be committed this day week.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Clauses up to 9 were agreed to without discussion.

On clause 10 being proposed,
Mr. R. PALMER suggested that a Committee should
be appointed to settle the law of bribery and treating at
elections. At present the law was so undefined that last
session two Election Committees came to different
conclusions upon the same point. If they left
the law in the state which this clause devised
they would find that at the next election the walls
of every town would be placarded by the orders of the
several candidates, stating from each that extensive
bribery and treating was going on, and that his oppo-
nent, if elected, would be incompetent to sit in the
Reuse of Commons.—(Fit ar, hear.) His opinion was
that the decision o•n the Cheltenham Election was cor-
rect; and he firmly believed, that unless a notice
was rightly given so as to impart a sufficient
knowledge in all cases of the real facts of
the ease to the electors, the votes given for the
candidate who obtained the majority ought not to be
struck off—(Hear, bear.) Unless some system was
adopted the whole of the mischief whi,.:ll this Bill was
intended to obviate would be as rife as ever at the next
election.

Mr. BUN BURY trusted that this clause would be
maintained, but with the addition suggested by the Right
[lon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) and with that also
proposed by the Hon. and Learned Member for Ply-
mouth (Mr. Roundel' Palmer). If those alterations were
made they would confer a great benefit upon the whole
constituency of the country.
In reply to the CHAIRMAN,
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said that he desired to
postpone the clause until he could give it a careful con-
sideration, and with a view to embody the two suggea
tions which 11,.(1 just been made.
Lord MAHON quite concurred in the wisdom of
adopting the suggestions which had been made, but
thought that the Bill should have a title of a
less comprehensive character than that which it now bore.
He thought there could be no objection to adopt the
course suggested by the Hon. Baronet, viz., to with-
draw the clause for the present. As the greater por-
tion of the Bill had' been amended and much of it
omitted, and very properly omitted, be thought the Bill
ought to be reprinted, and the title and preamble ought
to be altered, as in its present form it seemed too com-
prehensive.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
After a f,,,iv words from Mr. G. J. FIEATHCOTE and
Mr. ARMSTRONG, the clause was postponed.
Clauses 10 and 11, and the preamble of the Bill
were then agreed to, the House vsunacd, and the report
was brought up and ordered to be received this day
wee Ir.