The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-14 00:00:00

year or king George 11., entitled, &c. (2 George
24) ; but such gifts or promises are contrary to tite ancient
usage, ri4t, and freedom of elections, and contrary to the
laws anciconstitution of this realm:"
It then proceeds to mit:A as follotts t—
" Be it declared and enacted, that if any per Son or
Obi'L
toils shall, from and after the passing of this Act, either
by himself, herself, or themselves; or by any other person
or personse for or her, or their behalf, give or
1 cause tl5 oc given, directly or indirectly, or promise or
agree to give, any sum of money, gift, or reward, to

any person or persons, upon any engagement, con-
tract, or agreement, that such pers'on or persons to
whom., to whose use, or on whose behalf such gift or pro-
mise shall be made, shall, by himself, herself, or themselves,
or by any other person or persons whatsoever, at his, her,
er their solicitation, request, or command, procure or en-
deavour to procure the return of any person to serve in
Parliament for any county, stewartry, city, town, borough,

cinque port, or place, every person so laving given or pro-
mised to give, if not returned himself to Parliament for
such county, stewartry, city, town, borough, cinque port, or
place, shall for every such gift or promise forfeit the sum of
1,0001., to be recovered in such manner as is hereinafter
provided,, with respect to the sum of 5001. ; and every
such person so returned, and so having given, or so having
promised to give, or knowing of and consenting to such
gifts or promises, upon any such engagement; contract, or
agreement, shall be and is hereby declared and enacted to
be disabled and incapacitated to serve in that Parliament
for such.county, stewartry, city, town, borough, cinque port,
or place, and that such person shall be deemed' and taken,
and is hereby declared and enacted to be deemed and
taken, to be no Member of Parliament, and enacted to be,
to all intents, constructions, and purposes, as if he had
never been returned or elected a Member in Parliament.

" And any person or persons who shall receive or accept
of, by himself herself, or themselves, or by any other person
or persons in trust for, or to the use, or on the behalf of him,
her, or then:, any such sun: of nzoney, gift, or reward, or any
such promise upozi any such engagement, contract, or agree-
ment, shall for.kit to his Majesty the value and amount of
such sum of money, at, or reward, over and above the sum of
5001. ; which said sum of 5001. he, she, or they shall forfeit
to any person who shall sue for the same, to he recovered
with such costs of suit, by action of debt, bill, plaint, or in-
formation, in any of his Majesty's courts of record at West-
minster, if the offence be committed in that part of the
United Kingdom called England and Wales, and in any of
his Majesty's courts of record at Dublin, if the offence be
committed in Ireland, wherein respectively no essoin or
wager of law, or more than one imparlance, shall be allowed ;
and if the offence be committed in Scotland, then to be re-
covered, with the full costs of suit, by summary action or
complaint before the Court of Session, or by prosecution
before the Court of Justiciary there."
The Committee take no notice whatever of this sta-
tute, and from that omission it is fair to presume that
they consider (though they say nothing about the
matter) that the bargain with Mr. Raphael was a
legal bargain ; in other words, that to charge a man
1,0001. for nomination, a ceremony to which no ex-
pense legally attaches, is a lawful charge, and, fur-
ther, that there is nothing unlawful, nothing corrupt,
nothing that militates against the freedom or the
purity of election, in the manner in which, by the
evidence before them, certain parts of the purchase-
money were to be appropriated—namely, in compen-
sation to Mr. Vigors for prosecuting a petition relating
to a preceding election in which Mr. Raphael had no
concern whatever, and in the payment of the rent
of voters—the last a proceeding which, if it be not
bribery, at least renders what has been called
bribery unnecessary ; for what county or town may
not be carried by any candidate who has money
enough, and who is allowed to offer to pay, to pro-
mise to pay, or to advance (let the pea be under
whichever thimble) half-a-year's rent to any elector
who will vote for him ? Will any man who ponders
carefully and dispassionately on these points tell us,
that, let the Carlow Committee have been :ser so
honest, they have been in the least degree just in their
report upon the whole case submitted to them, espe-
cially when it is moreover kept in view, that while,
on the one hand, the committee have been so polite
as to believe all that was told them as to how the
2,0001. was really expended, and so charitable as to
report that the expenditure was legal, they have on
the other hand, carefully abstained from saying a
single syllable respecting the terms of the traffic and
agreement which settle the modes in which the cash
was to have been disposed of, those.modes being pal-
pably and illegal In any case, it must
be quite clear that if such a bargain, or the fulfilment
of it—either, and, of course, therefore both—be not
illegal, but. moreover proceedings which the House of
Commons will suffer to pass without extreme censure
and severe punishment, all the statutes against bribery
and corruption are a mere dead letter, and the fol-
lowing resolution of the House of Commons a piece
of most discreditable humbug, because operating a
fraud and deception upon the country.
" Resolved, that if it shall appear that any person bath
been elected or returned a Member to this House, or en-
deavoured so to be, by bribery, or any other corrupt prac-
tices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity
against all such persons as have been wilfully concerned in
such bribery or other corrupt practices."
We must defer till another occasion any further
observations on this point, and on other parts of
the case, but in the mean time we entreat our
readers to bear in mind, that even if Mr. O'Con-
nell had acted (as the Committee think he acted)
on this occasion, as an agent for others, the de-
merits of the transaction would not be varied either-
morally or legally, nor Mr. O'Connell's interest in
the affair be, in fact, one jot the less : that
the connection between Mr. O'Connell and the Mi-
nisters, through the medium of Lord Duncannon, is
clearly made out in the evidence ; that Mr. O'Con-
nell proposed to make Mr. Raphael a Baronet ; and last,
but not least, that if there be a strong desire to screen
Mr. O'Connell personally, and a party powerful
enough to gratify that desire, still that party is bound
for decency's sake, for the credit of themselves and of
their House, and in older that . the laws of the land
and the resolutions of the people's representatives in
Parliament may not be scoffed at and set at naught, to
take care that the House of Commons as a body shall
at least brand with their disapprobation the " bargain
and agreement," even though a nolle prosequi be en-
tered against the Government contractor. If this be
not done, then the gate's of Parliamentary corruption
arc once more thrown wide open, and every Member
of Parliament may set up with impunity the contra-
band trade of a boroughmonger.—Times.
The public are aware that from the moment when
the transactions between Messrs. O'Connell and Ra-
phael, touching the ,traffic for a seat in Carlow, be-
came the subject of Parliamentary investigation we
abstained from all commentary upon it, in accordance
with our invariable practice of desisting from all inter-
ference with judicial inquiries while yet in progress ;
considering it to be necessary for,the pure and impartial
administration of justice, that every tribunal in the
country that takt s cognizance of alleged offences against
the law should be perfectly free to give their verdict, or
make their report on the evidence actually before them,
without being constrained to turn aside from that evi-
dence by any external pressure. The Committee on
the Carlow job having now made its report, that report,
like every public document, and every judicial or Par-
liamentary decision, becomes the subject of public
criticism. What Parliament may think proper to do
upon the report of its Committee is one question—what
public opinion thinks of that report is anothe# ; and we
do not hesitate to say that in the annals of Committee-
proceedings, it would be difficult to find an instance
in which the report of a Committee was so little sup-
ported by the evidence as to the main object of inquiry.
When we say the
,main object of inquiry, we allude
to the question as it affects the constitutional privileges
of Parliament, and not the personal characters of Mr.
O'Connell or Mr. Raphael. If Mr. O'Connell had
defrauded the latter of any money upon false pretences,
that was properly a subject for inquiry in a criminal
Court—for although the .civil jurisdictions could give
no relief to Mr. Raphael, in enforcing the terms of a
contract which was upon the face of it illegal, yet the
illegality of the contract would not screen the offender
from the consequences of fraud, which is the subject
of cognisance brsyatcabteiCourt of Criminal Justice. The
gfirnewatfagructhst
eiontrafioiconsti-
tuted tuted a constitution--
oCnsonl.m betweenit teoftitiheo
partiesCommoicios
offence, and a breach of the
privileges of Pa-"
.uament. As to the personal ques-
tion, we ha-
not only
.e no difficulty in saying that the evidence
ru noes not support the charge of personal cor-
pt. J
.do against Mr. O'Connell—not only does not go
prove that he was to derive any pecuniary advantage
(rog the transaction, but it entirely and completely