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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 10.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord BROUGHAM moved 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
recess,
e r
for by
tho compromise
purpose or
preventing free choice of Members of Parliament, of Peers of
Scotland and Ireland, by intimidation or otherwise.
That it is the duty of both Houses of Parliament to in-
quire
„
and frustrating the inquiry into such corrup-
tion or intimidation, at elections of Members of bargains,allcorrupdturthgfhe c
we
of
otherwise, made
Parlia-
ment, or of Scotch and Irish Peers. This was not the
first time that he had to draw the attention of the House
to this subject. It was the opinion of some that this
question was one which peculiarly belonged to the lower
House, but he entirely dissented from that opinion. Their
Lordships had rejected the Bribery Bill of 1829, which
had 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 he 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 be 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 meantime, 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 LANSDOWNL 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 s ecific 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
Isis to such.
—is 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 Bill
went through Committee.
CANADA
CONSOLIDATED REVENUE BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
Lord drew IRISH EMIGRANTS.
ENNISKILLEN the attention of the
J.
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 quarantine that they were
obliged to the
perform in the vessels, which were full of
distemper.
Earl GREY said thate eyed to say it was too
sieved
true that they had received the most deplorable
accounts of the fate which awaited a larsnumber of the
eZIigZOLI gips, A r
94 KW a WAdigit Vbitrag%

ter had broken out in some of the vesgels, which obliged
them to be detained in quarantine. The Governor had 1
taken the most prompt and efficient steps, and ten thou-
sand tents were erected upon the shore, besides a large
quantity of sheds were built for their 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 tho notice of the House.
He hoped it would out to the public that the mi-
, series which had been endured could not have been
averted by the Government.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 12.
NEW ZEALAND (No. 2) BILL.
Mr. HAWES, in moving the order of the day for the
second reading of this Bill, referred to those previous
measures on this subject which had been brought
under the notice of the House, and said that,
without entering into those questions at that time,
it would be better, by a wise and liberal system
of colonization at once to place upon a sound and perma-
nent basis the government of that country. Such views
as the Government entertained upon this subject were
attempted to be forwarded by a company called the
New Zealand Company, and the questions raised by the
Bill were—first, whether the Government should make an
advance of funds to this company; and, secondly, whether
it should, in the event of such an advance being made,
have any authority or control over it. In looking over
the books of the company, it appeared that the
amount of paid-up capital was 200,000/. ; raised on
the sales of land, 277,000/. ; borrowed from Go-
vernment, 80,000/. ; from other sources, 25,0001. ;
making in all 636,0001. It appeared that the company
had spent 200,0001. in the colony, and as their prospects
seemed to justify further assistance, he proposed by the
Bill to advance them the further sum of 136,000/.
On the question that the Bill be read a second time,
Lord G. BENTINCK said he would not oppose the
measure, although he thought that the principle with
which the Government had started in the present session
had been departed from in this Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS supported the second reading of
i the Bill.

Mr. W. PATTEN was desirous of knowing whether
the past liabilities of the company were to be under-
taken by the Government ?
Mr. HAVES said that the past liabilities of the com-
pany had been estimated, and it was for the purpose of
meeting them that the former loans had been granted by
Government, and no new liabilities could be incurred
without the sanction of the Government.
Mr. V. SMITH was desirous of knowing upon what
principle the money was advanced. Was it intended to
give the grant as a compensation to the New Zealand
Company, because if compensation was intended it
would be better in his opinion to grant it in any other
shape than the present. If it was not made for com-
pensation was it for colonisation—if it was, then how
were they to meet the claims of other colonies? He had
made the observation in no spirit of opposition to the
measure, but in order that this Bill might receive
proper consideration, as it related to one of the most
important colonies of this country.
Mr. C. BULLER felt called upon lo make some
observations, as some misapprehensions appeared to pre-
vail with respect to the provisions of the Bill. The Go-
vernment would not be answerable for any liabilities
further than those expressly stated—most certainly not
to any general liabilities. The Government had framed
this Bill not with a view to grant this loan as a means
of compensation. but as a means of colonisation for
which this company had done more than any other asso-
ciation of private individuals.
Mr. HUME thought that this Bill was one which
ought to attract the attention of the whole country. He
was of opinion that the money which they were called
upon to pay this year and last year, was the penalty of
the mismanagement which had been made by the Go-
vernment of the colony of New Zealand. He hoped,
however, that the present heads of the Colonial Depart-
ment would profit by the mistakes of their predecessors,
and exert themselves to prevent a recurrence of the evils
that had already taken place. The most effectual method
for that purpose would be to establish local self govern-
ment. By carrying out this principle, the evils which
spring from the mismanagement of the Colonial-office,
would be put an end to, and a responsibility secured
which would prevent abuse. He was also of opinion that
it would be much better to leave colonization to private
speculation, as from the experience which they had of
the attempt hitherto made by Government in this re•
spect, he feared there was little to be expected but failure
and abuse.
Mr. WILLIAMS thought the grant now proposed
was a large expenditure, but he would not oppose it.
He considered, however, that the mismanagement of the
Colonial •office, which necessitated this additional grant,
should be put an end to.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought the Bill should be dis-
cussed on its merits, and that the censures directed by
the Eon. Member for Montrose and the Hon. Member
for Coventry against the late administration of Colonial
affairs was not deserved by the Noble Lord who pre-
sided over that department in the Government of which
he (Sir J. Graham) had been a Member. If the whole
liability of the British Exchequer was to be limited to
236,0001.—the money advanced last year, and the pre-
sent grant—he would be satisfied. He hoped these
grants would be the means of securing the prosperity of
the colony, and enabling the colony to carry out those
operation:, which were calculated to develope its re.
sources.
After a few words from Lord INGESTRE and Mr. E.
DENtsoN,
Mr AGLIONBY said that the colony had weighed
the consequences of its own acts, and he believed that at
the expiration of the three years they would be com-
pletely successful. He was always desirous that there
should be no concealment in the affairs of the colony,
and he believed the succc ss of the undertaking was cer-
tain from the soundness of the principles on which it was
based.
Mr. DISRAELI thought that their constituents out
of doors should properly understand what they were
called upon to do this evening. They were called upon
to give a grant of public money for one of their colonies.
Now, at the beginning of the session a great outcry was
made because a proposition was made for a grant of pub-
lic money for a great public good, and the grounds on
which it was opposed was, that possibly it might gointo
the pockets of destitute shareholders.—(Laughter.) He
wished to know, then, into whose pockets this money was
to go.—(Laughter.) He very much feared that now, at
the close of the session, the Government, under the
magical influence of twilight, were allowing those prin-
ciples which they advocated with such energy at the be-
ginning of the session to drop quietly into
i oblivion.—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) If this was an ill-used and
unfortunate country, as had been stated, he thought it
was pretty fairly represented in the Government.—
(Laughter.) He wanted to know how it was that the
money now proposed to be advanced to the New Zealand
Company, was to be given at 3f per cent., while that
proposed a few nights ago to be advanced to Ireland was
to be charged 5 per cent.? Was it to be understood
generally in Ireland, that in the estimation of the present
Government, the security of New Zealand was to
be preferred to that of Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) He did
not mean to vote against the Bill, but he thought that
this vote showed a most extraordinary and glaring in-
consistency on the part of the Government, and while
it paid a proud homage to the soundness of the prin-
ciples advocated so ably by his Noble Friend beside him
(Lord G. Bentinck) at the beginning of the session,
pronounced the strongest possible condemnation on the
course pursued by the present Government.--(Cheers.)
The Bill was then read a second time.

iIUSSELFISIIERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
HERRING FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
POST-OFFICE BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
NAVIGATION (No. 2) BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.
The report on this Bill was brought up.
DESTITUTE PERSONS (IRELAND) BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill, and
passed the remaining clauses.
The House resumed.
LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
The clauses of the Bill were then agreed to without
alteration. The Chairman reported progress, and the
report was ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
RECOVERY OF PUBLIC MONIES (IRELAND)
BILL.
The report on this Bill was further considered. The
Bill was ordered to bo engrossed, and read a third time
to-morrow.

MILITIA PAY BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
TRUSTEES RELIEF BILL.

The Trustees Relief Bill was then read a second time,
and ordered to be committed to-morrow (this day).
CANAL COMPANIES BILL.

The House then resolved itself into Committee upon
this Bill.

The clauses were agreed to, and the report ordered to
be brought up to•morrow.
COPYRIGHT (COLONIES) BILL.'
The House then went into Committee upon the Copy-
right (Colonies) Bill.
The clauses were agreed to, and the report ordered to
be received to-morrow.

COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL.
The second reading of this Bill was postponed until
tomorrow.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
Upon the order of the day for going into Committee
upon this Bill,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that, before
goinginto Committee upon this Bill, he wished to call
the attention of the House, briefly, to its nature and
provisions. This Bill had gone through the other
House of Parliament with the entire concurrence of the
law Lords. After a most careful investigation, he con-
fessed that he did not quite understand why so strong an
opposition should have been got up to it, especially to
the first three or four clauses. It had been stated that
the effect of the measure was to give an increased patron-
age to the Lord Chancellor ; but so far from that being
the case, it took from him a good deal of that
patronage which was at present vested in him
under one or two already existing Acts. It was
well-known that the law of Bankruptcy. had for
the last six or seven years been administered by
the Court of Chancery in reality, although perhaps
it was not so nominally. It was proposed by this Bill
to clg any Irith the Court 01 Uovtow, and to yot

the administration of this law entirely in the Vice-
Chancellor, who should be appointed for that purpose.
It was admitted on all hands that the system which had
been introduced some years since, of giving a mixed
bankruptcy and insolvency jurisdiction to the Bank-
ruptcy Court, had greatly affected the just and proper
administration of the law of bankruptcy. When they
reflected that under the present administration great
expenses were incurred for the salaries and travelling
expenses of the commissioners, and these expenses it ap-
peared from the report of the commissioners themselves,
were in many instances quite useless, for when they
came to different towns upon their lists, they found no
business to do, although they might have travelled for
hundreds of miles at 2s. per mile. He therefore did
not see why the powers possessed by the commissioners
should not be vested in the local judges, and thus the
saving of expenditure effected under the circumstances.
He hoped that the House would give its consent to the

Bill. -
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he was happy to say that
to the greater part of this measure he was enabled to
give his decided assent, but to the first few clauses he
most certainly entertained the strongest objection.
When it was stated that the Law Lords entirely con-
curred in this measure he (Sir J. Graham) knew that
Lord Brougham was entirely opposed to the transfer of
these powers to the Court of Chancery. It was not,
however, by the opinions of the Lord Chancellor, or of
ex-Lord Chancellors, that the question was to be
regulated. This subject was referred to a commission
of competent persons, composed of lawyers and gen-
tlemen connected with trade, and presided over by Mr.
Justice Erskine. The commission came to the unani-
mous report, first, that insolvency should be separated
from the great seal, and that there ought to be a distinct
and separate jurisdiction appoieted by the formation of
a court of review. Upon this report the present law
was framed, and it had existed unchanged ever hinco
the enactment had been passed. The Honourable
Gentleman had said that this was only a nominal
change—if it were so why not adhere to the present
system until the whole subject came under the conside-
ration of the House next session? If it were not in-
tended to create new, patronage, the throwing of these
powers into the hands lof the C, urt of Chancery would
tend to uphold offices of very doubtful use and necessity.
He viewed with great suspicion any design that would
re-transfer these offices to the Great Seal. He saw no
necessity why they should, at this period of the session,
adopt such a course, considering that they had that re-
port before them.
Sir GEORGE GREY said, that if the opposition were
only directed to these three clauses referred to by the
Right Hon. Baronet, it might be better to defer the con-
sideration of them till in Committee. He should then
be prepared to prove that the Right Hon. Baronet had
misunderstood the object of these clauses.
Sir J. GRAHAM had no objection to take the dis-
cussion at that period.
Mr. JOHN STUART begged the Right Hon. Baro-
net to reconsider his determination, and much more did
he implore the Government not to press forward this
measure at this late period of the session. He should
feel himself called upon imperatively to give the Bill, if
persevered in, his most determined opposition, however
little able he was to do so, after having spoken in the
Court of Chancery for nearly six successive hours. The
object of the clauses, which were objected to, was to
re-transfer the jurisdiction of the Court of Review to
one of the Chancery Courts.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that he did not intend to
defend the Chancery Courts.
Mr. JOHN STUART—Why, the Bill before the
House inevitably led to the consideration of these courts,
and he did not think it fair that the Secretary for the
Home Department should come down to that House and
say he would riot defend the Court of Chancery. But
if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Attorney-
General, wonld consent to postpone his Bill for a short
time, it would not only shorten the discussion, but
would allow them to give a subject, so important, the
consideration which it demanded. They were dealing with
the subject in a most hasty and inconsiderate manner,
Now, he would have tried to define in the Bill what
were to be the limits of these local jurisdictions. He
would have tried to do so in a lawyerlike and states-
manlike character, but the framers of this Bill had not
done so ; and he prayed them to defer the further consi-
deration of this measure until that attention had been
paid which it well deserved.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On the proposition of the first clause,
Sir J. GRAHAM moved that the clause be omitted.
Sir G. GREY advocated the retention of the clause.
Mr. S. WORTLEY was at a loss to know what had
been the reasons which had induced the Government to
introduce this clause in the Bill, and he should most
certainly support the motion for the rejection of the
clause.
Mr. HENLEY supported the rejection of the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL explained that the
object of the clause was simply to legalise a mode of
conducting this business, which had hitherto worked to
the satisfaction of the public.
Sir J. GRAHAM contended for the necessity of con-
tinuing the existence of the Court of Review. He
would rather recommend the abolition of one of the in-
ferior Courts of Chancery.
Sir G. GREY thought that if a judge were to be con-
stituted sole judge of the Court of Review, he would
spend half his time in idleness ; whereas, by the present
Bill he could find ample employment in the business of
the united Court of Chancery and Court of Review over
which he would preside.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that if the remaining clauses
of the Bill were passed, they would have the effect of
increasing the number of appeals from the County
Courts.
Mr. DISRAELI thought that after the Government,
had thrown over the Health of Towns and other Bills
there was not much necessity for discussing at this late
period of the session, and late hour of the day, clauses
which the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for
the Home Department had himself admitted to be of no
importance.
Mr. ROMILLY thought that the present Bill would
tend to remove the mischief of the sub-division of Courts
at present existing, and which gave rise to an enormous
amount of litigation and expense.
Mr. HUME thought that the best course would be to
'et the matter remain as it stood, and he hoped that the
Government would withdraw the clauses.
After a few words from Mr. MACARTHY,
Toe House divided, when there appeared—
For the clause 44
Against it

Majority in favour of the clause ... —7
Clause 1 was then agreed to.
Lord J. MANNERS then said that if the three first
clauses were agreed to he should feel it his duty to op-
pose the whole of the remaining clauses of the Bill.
Mr. aumE thought that if the Government wished
to preserve the beneficial clauses of the Bill, it ought to
give up the three first clauses.
Clause 2 was then proposed.
Mr. S. WORTLEY thought that to avoid future op-
position on the further stages of the Bill, it would be
better to withdraw the obnoxious clauses.
Sir G. GREY thought that the better course to adopt
would be, for those llon. Members who objected to the
clauses to oppose them in the future stages of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Wakley,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Stuart,
strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House di-
vided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority in favour of the clause
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 3 was then proposed, and after a few words
from Mr. S. Wortley, the Attorney-General, and Mr.
Stuart, was agreed to.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to.
Mr. BROWN moved the insertion of the clause, giving
power to the Judges of County Courts to issue warrants
to arrest a debtor in certain cases, such debtor being
within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court, and to
detain him in custody for a limited time, or until an
order obtained to hold him to bail, when the custody to
be transferred to the sheriff or officer holding a capias
issued thereon, and setting forth that whereas
the delay which sometime takes place in pro-
curing an order from a Judge of one of the
superior courts to hold a defendant to bail, and in
issuing a capias thereon, is injurious to creditors, be it
enacted, That if a plaintiff in any action in any of her
Majesty's superior courts of law at Westminster for
the recovery of a debt, or the creditor of any debtor who
shall enter into an undertaking immediately to commence
such an action, shall, by the affidavit of himself
or some other person, show, to the satisfaction of any
judge of any of the county courts aforesaid, that he
has a cause of action against such defendant
or debtor to the amount of twenty pounds or
upwards, or has sustained damage to that amount,
and that there is probable cause for believing that such
defendant or debtor is about to quit England, unless he
be forthwith apprehended, it shall be lawful for such
Judge to issue his warrant, directed to such person or
persons as he shall think fit, whereby such person or
persons shall have authority to arrest any such defendant
or debtor named in such warrant, wherever ho may be
found within the limits of the jurisdiction of such
Judge, and him safely keep for five days then next, or
until such defendant or debtor shall have given a
bail bond to the Sheriff; or shall have made
deposit of the amount of the debt or damages mentioned
in such warrant, together with ten pounds for costs, ac-
cording to the present practice of her Majesty's superiorio
courts of law at Westminster, when a defendant is
custody upon a writ of capias, or until an order for
hold-
ing such defendant or debtor to bail
under the provisions of an Act passed
Parliament held in the first and
in the session of
can
be obtained
titieiled " An Act for
second years of the
reign of her present Majesty,o
i
l
oa
obpo
tl i h i
certain
t arrestei
o cases, on
the in
crievmi daicetsi onfs ex-
in
cre-
ditors against the property of
mfoerseuxetpenro
debtorsdienlsigsand for amending
the laws for the relief of insolvent debtors in England."
After a few words from Sir G. Grey, Mr. Henley,
Mr. Stuart, and the Attorney-General, the clause was
withdrawn.
The preamble of the Bill was then declared to be
proved, the House resumed, and the Bill was ordered to
be reported
e on Wednesday.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES (No. 2) BILL.
The order of tho day for going into Committee on
this Bill was postponed till Thursday next.
TRUST MONIES INVESTMENT BILL.
On the order of the day being read for going into
Committee on this Bill,
Mr. STUART said he felt it Isis duty to oppose the
further progress of this Bill. He entirely disagreed with
the principles of the Bill.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
After a few words from Lord Courtenay, Mr. Henley,
and Sir G. Grey, the several clauses of the Bill were
agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be reported this
day.
The other orders of the day where then disposed of,
end the IliAlVe 149=94 At A (tarter p 44 Twelye
4194,