The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-13 00:00:00

a-IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 12.
The LORD CuszTcFaxon took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from the
General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland,
stating the desire of the petitioners to have an equitable
settlement with respect to the money subscribed for the
erection of chapels before the disruption between them
and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,
and praying the House to adopt some measures on the
subject.
RECEPTION OF BILLS.
Lord BROUGHAM brought up the report of the
Committee appointed to inquire into the best mode of
receiving Bills from the Commons. The Committee re-
ported that it would be advisable, in order to save the
public time, that their Lordships should receive all
the Bills brought up in a day by one message, and that
no alteration was required in the standing orders to
carry that object into effect. The Committee also re-
pred that it would be desirable, in future, to send down
Rills from that House to the Commons by one master
instead of two.
After some short discussion, a conference was ordered
with the Commons upon the subject of the report.
DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the
Drainage of Lands (Scotland). Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be committed.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCK BILL.
The Earl of KINNAIRD trusted that the Noble and
Learned Lord (the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lan-
caster) would postpone the third reading of the Leith
Harbour and Dock Bill, as many Noble Lords like him-
self, under the supposition that the measure was a pri-
vate one, had not looked into its details. He had since
discovered that the measure was made a public one,
and that its provisions were most important, and greatly
affected private interests.
Lord CAMPBELL must persevere with the Bill, as
it was one of great public importance. The Noble Lord
then presented several petitions in favour of the Bill.
CONFERENCE ON THE FORMS OF THE

HOUSE.
The Duke of Richmond and Lords Brougham, Re-
desdale, Ellenborough, Monteagle, and the Bishop of
St. Asapb, left the House to hold a conference with the
Commons on the forms of the House.
LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCK BILL.
Some discussion took place upon this Bill, in the
course of which
Lord KINNAIRD said it looked very like a job.
Lord REDESDALE said that the Bill ought to be
postponed until next session, as it was one of the most
flagrant election jobs that had ever come under his ob-
servation. The Lord Advocate sat for Leith, and the
Bill was introduced on the eve of a general election.
Lord CAMPBELL said that the discussion which
bad taken place was most irregular; he had no objec-
tion to the returns which the Noble Lord desired.
The discussion here dropped.
CLERGY OFFENCES BILL
This Bill was read a third time.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
Messengers from the Commons brought up certain
Bills.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord BROUGHAM mcved the following resolutions
on the subject of bribery at elections :—" That it is the
bounden duty of both Houses of Parliament to adopt,
at the beginning of next session, whatever means may
be most effectual for detecting and punishing acts of
bribery and corruption which may be committed during
the ensuing recess, at the election of Members of
Parliament and Peers of Scotland and Ireland,
such offences being altogether subversive of the
freedom of election, destructive of the purity of the
Legislature, leading to the moral guilt of perjury in all
cases, and the actual commission by many of that foul
and heinous crime. That it is also the duty of Parlia
ment to inquire and visit with punishment all acts which
may be done during the recess for interfering with the
free choice of Members of Parliament, of Peers of
Scotland said Ireland, by intimidation or otherwise.
That it is the duty of both Houses of Parliament to in-
quire of all corrupt bargains, whether by compromise or
otherwise, made during the recess, for the purpose of
preventing and frustrating the inquiry into such corrup-
tion or intimidation, at elections of Members of Parlia-
ment, or of Scotch and Irish Peers. This was not the
first time that ho had to draw the attention of the House
to tEis subject. It was the opinion of some that this
question was one which peculiarly belongad to the lower
House, but he entirely dissented from that opinion. Their
Lordships had rejected the Bribery Bill of 1829, which
bad been passed by the lower House, and in 1729, when
the law was passed which now guides the decisions of
the tribunals, their Lordships made certain valuable
alterations, so that there was no want of precedent for
the resolution which ha. proposed for their adoption.
The Reform Bill had the most beneficial effect in check-
ing bribery and corruption, it enabled them at once to
detect crime. The election for Liverpool, which
he contested with Mr. Canning, cost 40,0001.,
and it was impossible to say where the legal
expenses ended. The election for 1841 had tar-
nished the honour of the Legislature. They had
all seen charges of bribery brought against men of high
character, of rank, and position in the country. Charges
which he was bound to say were fully proved. The ar-
guments against this practice of bribery were so many,
that he would disdain to enter upon them. He did not
believe that five per cent of those bribed refused the
bribery oath when tendered; and was it not frightful to
think, that every voter there had it in their power to
tender that oath to the guilty party who thus ran such a
risk of committing this heinous crime. It appeared to
him that there should be no limit put to the time when
the proof of bribery might be given, nor did he consider
that a Member's seat should be secure at any time if
it could be proved that he obtained it by bribery.
He hoped that the next session would not terminate
without some decisive and salutary step being taken
upon this subject. In the m( antime, if their Lordships
gave their consent to these resolutions, he had no doubt
but that it would work beneficially. Their Lordships
might see by the addresses in the papers, that those
who were seeking for the highest trust that could be
conferred upon them, were wholly unknown to the con-
stituents. He was wrong ; they were known, perhaps,
to a couple of attorneys in the borough.—(Hear, hear).
The symptoms of the time appeared to indicate to him
that a greater degree of bribery would take place at the
ensuing election than there did at the election of 1842.
The Noble Lord concluded by moving the resolutions.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE could not be sorry
that his Noble Friend had taken that opportunity to
denounce the heinous crime of bribery and corruption,
in the eloquent terms which he had done, although he
differed from the Noble Lord as to the expediency of
passing such a resolution when they did not intend to
follow it up by a specific enactment, and he hoped that
his Noble Friend would not consider him unconscious of
the magnitude of the heinous crime which he had de-
nounced that night so ably. But he always objected to
abstract resolutions; they should not pledge the House
to such. His Noble and Learned Friend was fully
aware that it was not the want of a feeling of abhor-
rence to the crime which prevented legislation upon the
subject, but that it was the difficulty of reaching the
subject in an efficient manner. Numberless Bills were
brought into the House for the prevention of bribery,
but in their course they were always objectionable in
some detail or another.
Lord BROUGHAM, after a few words in reply, said
that he would withdraw the resolutions.
The resolutions were then withdrawn.
RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.

This Bill went through Committee.
SUPPRESSION OF SEDUCTION.
On the motion of the Bishop of OXFORD, this Bi,
went through Committee.
CANADA CONSOLIDATED REVENUE BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
IRISH EMIGRANTS.
Lord ENNISKILLEN drew the attention of the
Government to a letter in an Irish newspaper, which
detailed the dismal fate which awaited the Irish emi-
grants, who arrived in Canada, from the want of ac-
commodation, and the quarantine that they were
obliged to perform in the vessels, which were full of
distemper.
Earl GREY said that
heeivegdrievtheed tmoossaty
deplorablei t
w awas
too
true that they had re
accounts of the fate whichacwaiotefdsnaehlaarge dreadfulnum be
charac-
ter hoafr tahee.
emigrant ships. A distemper
ter had broken out in some
of the vesTsehles,Gwohviecrhnoorblihgaedd
them to be detained in quarantine.
taken the most prompt and efficient steps, and ten a
large thou-
sand tents Were erected upon the shore
quantity a sheds were built for shore, besides
accommo-
dation. He had warned Lord Elgin that such a
catastrophe was likely to occur, and he was proud
to say that that Noble Lord had done every-
thing possible to alleviate the sufferings of those
unfortunates. He trusted that the details of these cir•
cumstances would prevent and check too large an emi
gration from Ireland. He did believe that all these suf-
ferings arose from the previous sufferings which the emi
grants had endured.
Lord MONTEAGLE thanked the Noble Lord for
bringing the question under the notice of the House.
He hoped it would f..,0 out to the public that the mi-
series which had been endured could not have been
averted by the Government.
Their Lordships then adjourned.