The Sun.
London, England, 1848-07-28 00:00:00

Mr. SCULLY wished to know whether the Govern-
ment,
supposing lion. Members went to Ireland, were
prepared to give to the people of that country that
benefit and protection which they had hitherto cOnto•
maciously refused.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the first duty of
the Government was to put down insurrection in Ireland,
the Government were determined to do so, and that was
the only answer he could give to the Hon. Member.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the motion that the House should resolve itself
into Committee on this Bill,
Colonel SIBTHORP rose to oppose it. He could tell
Government that if they attempted to send their com-
mission to Lincoln, and if they came to make inquiries
in this House, he would use very strong measures to
turn them out. He wished to know why all the bo-
roughs against which bribery and treating had been re-
ported by the Select Committees were not included in
the schedule—why were ten boroughs to be shown up
and eight others allowed to escape? The Bill would
give a premium to perjury—it was an underhand way of
proceeding not to obtain facts, but to establish suspi-
cion, and whether supported or not he should feel it his
duty to take the sense of the House against every clause.
He moved as an amendment that the House go into
Committee that day three months.
Mr. ANSTEY seconded the amendment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in supporting the
Bill, said that if the Hon. and Gallant Member could point
oat the case of any boroughs not now in the schedule, in
respect to which corrupt practices had been specially re-
ported, it would be proper to extend the inquiry to them.
The sole object of the Bill was to make inquiry into the
allegations of corrupt practices, in order to devise mea-
sures to prevent the recurrence of such practices for the
future. He hoped the House would go into Committee,
end unite with the Government in its endeavour to make
the Bill as effective as possible for its object.
Mr. PACKE spoke in favour of the Bill, which he
thought infinitely preferable to the measure of the Hon.
Member for the Flint boroughs. He, however, should
prefer that the inquiry were made in all cases by Com-
mittees of the House.
Mr. R. PALMER asked whether the inquiry was not
to be confined to those boroughs in respect to which the
Election Committees had reported specially?
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—What he meant was,
such boroughs as the Committee had reported corrupt
practices had prevailed in, and as to which they recom-
mended further inquiry.
Mr. HUME said it was a question whether the same
vice did not pervade all boroughs, large and s:nall, and
whether it would not be better to pass some general mea-
sure applicable to all. Unless something was done before
the next election, hardly a single Member could hope to
retain his seat if any person thought proper vexatiously
to petition against him. They ought to know to what
extent candidates might go, without being subject to the
laws against treating.
Mr. ANSTEY thought the Bill was objectionable, not
merely in detail, but in principle. He therefore must
join in the opposition to the motion for its committal.
There was no distinction made in the Bill between those
cases where the Members have been unseated for bribery
and those where the report has been that treating only
had been proved. The real object of the Bill was to set
aside the decisions of those Committees which did not
think further inquiry necessary, and to retry those cases
which had been already tried, and to deprive the consti-
tuencies and Members of the boroughs to which the Bill
Was to apply of those exemptions from further prosecu-
tions, which, by the decisions of the Election Commit-
tees, they were entitled to.
An HON. MEMBER here moved (eight o'clock) that
the House should be counted, but, there being above
forty Members present, the business proceeded.
Mr. ANSTEY went on to allude to the provisions for
indemnity to witnesses.—(Cries of " Divide, divide.")
The House (exclaimed the Hon. Member) shall not di-
vide; I say that in the spirit of prophecy.—(Great
laughter.) If a guilty party chose to come forward and
admit that he had given bribes, he could not be punished;
on the other hand, he was rewarded. He might ruin his
dupes and disfranchise a borough, but was himself held
harmless, whether his evidence were true or false. Guilty
parties had only to add perjury to their other crimes, by
involving theconstituency, and they could not be touched.
This Has nothing less than a premium to false wit-
nesses. By the 16th clause parties unwilling to come for-
ward were subjected to the penalties heretofore existing,
with the exception thatwitnesses examined before theCom-
raittee or commissioners could not be made witnesses
on a prosecution against them. Whatever the motive,
the effect of this clause would be to take away from the
public any security that might be left against corrupt
practices. The clause relating to expenses held out a
direct inducement to the commissioners to prolong their
inquiries and multiply business, power being reserved to
the Treasury, in whom the House had so little confi-
dince, to make order for the payment of extraordinary
expenses to an unlimited amount. The inquiries would
probably be to a great extent ex parse, for such was the
general character of the Bill; but no decision, however
unjust, could be called in question after six months.
This was essentially a private Bill, notwithstanding the
enactment that it should be taken to be a public Act;
and this would give rise to a vast amount of litigation.
Three clauses of the Bill virtually repealed the Act 7 & 8
Victoria, under which contested elections were now
tried. The power to appoint two commissioners, who
should possess all the powers of the House, was most
objectionable, as involving the principle of double dele-
gation. Referring to the schedule of the Bill, he found
Horsham was one of the boroughs to which it referred.
Why, there were actions pending for penalties, if they
bad not been compromised, arising out of the Horsham
election; and was it proper to legislate on that subject,
while these actions were pending before a competent
tribunal? The cases of Leicester and Derby offered this
remark—that while in the latter the Whigs only had
bribed, in the former, not only Whigs, but Radicals, and
the leaders of the newly-formed Reform party, had been
guilty of the same practices. He seconded the amend-
ment on grounds of principle, and not of detail, for he
objected to every enactment of the Bill.
Mr. HUDSON said he had opposed this Bill in a
former stage, but should not now vote upon it. His
epinion of the Bill was not altered ; he thought it would
create a great amount of strife and heart-burnings. He
bad known what it was to be the subject of one of those
inquiries, and to have his private correspondence re-
Ported and all his transactions exposed. If investiga-
tion were instituted it should be general. An Hon.
Member of that House had openly stated that there had
been gross bribery at the last election for London, and
had even mentioned the names of those who had paid
the price of corruption. If any inquiry was made, it
should include the last election for London. It was pre-
posterous to set up a crusade against all elections at which
money had been distributed to the poorer electors. He did
not speak of bribes of course, nor had the small sums given
to poor electors for their dinner, or for their reasonable
ezpenaea to and from the place of palling, anything to
do with bribery. If it were decided that half crown
tickets or five shilling tickets given in this way to the
Poor electors were to vitiate elections, the result would
be to throw the franchise wholly into the hands of the
rich, for unless sustenance on their way to and from the
Polling places were given to the humbler electors, they
would not be able to attend and exercise their franchise
at all; for the very practical reason that they could not
afford it. What did the Right Hon. Baronet propose to
do when he had got his report? There was no practical
intimation as to what the result was proposed to be.
After the decided division which had taken place on a
former stage of the Bill, he should not vote against the
present stage, though he still retained all his objections
LO the measure. _

Mr. fiRQUII ART supported the amendment.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority
The House then went into Committee.

On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. ANSTEY said he should move the omission of
those words in the clause which authorised inquiries
into elections in reference to which Committees already
nominated had nut made a special report; and he should
afterwards, whatever the division on that amendment,
move the omission of the clause altogether.
Colonel SIBTHORP contended for the impartial ex-
tension of the inquiry.
Mr. ANSTEY then put the amendment he had inti-
mated, limiting the inquiry to elections with respect to
which special reports had been made.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL suggested the pro-
priety of postponing the amendment until they came to
the list of boroughs.

Mr. REYNOLDS deprecated the manner in which, at
this period of the session, the Honourable and Learned
Member for Youghal, in the spirit of mere opposition,
occupied the time of the House.—(Hear, hear.) There
had that day been consumed four hours in the discussion
whether the Bill was to go into Committee, of which
Sour hours the Hon. and Learned Member had absorbed
three.—ear, hear.) Honourable Gentlemen present
dearly showed themselves to be members of Job's family
by their magnanimous endurance on the occasion.—
(Hear, hear.) Before he came into Parliament he had
been warned by his friends not to weary the attention of
the House by long, rigmarole, absurd speeches about
nothing —(Hear, hear)—and he had, from a feeling of
respect to himself and to the House, abstained from per-
petrating such speeches— (Laughter)—but certainly,
as a zealous repealer, he ought to hail such speeches
in the Hon. and Learned Member for Youghal, in the
conviction that if the Hon. and Learned Member could
manage to get fifty other Irish Members with equal
strength of lung and obstinacy of pertinacity—(Hoar,
hear)—the imperial House of Commons would give
repeal in sheer weariness and disgust.—(Laughter.)
Mr. ANSTEY, who, on rising, was received with ge-
neral and laud cries of " Oh, oh," protested against the
attack made on him by the Hon. Member for Dublin,
whom he charged with being influenced in his new zeal
for the Government by views of personal advancement,
and by the Reform Club contribution in aid of his elec-
tion committee expenses, which the Right Hon. Member
for Drogheda had admitted himself a donor to.—(Loud
*ries of .' Oh, oh.")
Sir W. SOMERVILLE demanded to know by what
authority the Hon. and Learned Member thus introduced
Us name on this occasion?
Mr. ANSTEY had no hesitation in answering the
lion. Baronet. The Hon. Baronet admitted, or did not
ela3r, the other night, that he had paid me-ley for the
auPport of an election, an impeachment of which upon
)etition was now pending; and lie said that the money
Snot paid by him in the capacity of Sebretary for Ire-
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—I said nothing of the kind.
ANSTEY said he was in the recollection of the
'louse. Whatever verbal variations there might be
ltween the Honourable Gentleman's statement and
this he
ger could not tell. Unless his ears were trea-
ous that was the substance of what the Hon. Mem-
ber said.—(oll.)
fell from
W. SOMERVILLE—I beg to say that nothing
from me the other night that could give the shadow
„L.,
foundation for what the Hon Member has stated.