The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-16 00:00:00

to the Committee for sin months; but he should in
subs( quent stages give the Bill every opposition in his
Power.

Lerd J. RUSSELL hoped that as the House had
already declared its opinion of the merits of the Bill in
two divisions, the Committee would he permitted to be
proceeded without further delay.—(dear.)
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
Colonel SIBTIIORP moved that the chairman report
Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. BANKES would be willing to support his Hon.
and Gallant Friend in a division against the first clause,
but trusted that he would not take the seemingly in-
vidious course of dividing on a merely formal stage of
the Bill.
Col. SIBTIIORP persisted in dividing the House, and
the gallery was cleared. On our return we were in-
formed that no division had taken place, the mover of
the amendment having been unable to obtain a teller.
The Hon. and Gallant Member hastily bundled up his
books and papers and walked out of the House.
On clause 1, appointing commissioners,
Mr. BANKES had an objection to this clause, which,
indeed, involved the whole principle of the Bill. lie ob-
jected generally to commissioners appointed by Govern-
ment, because—let them act ever so impartially—their
decisions never gave satisfaction, being always suspected
of bias. It had been so in the case of the commis-
sioners under the Reform Bill, and also in that of the
Municipal commissioners. Besides, they never could
get men of much eminence at the bar to serve on these
commissions, and the holders of the franchise would
hardly be satisfied to be deprived of it at the discretion
of third or fourth rate legal practitioners.—(Hear.) In
addition to this, they could never steer clear of the sus-
picion of political bias.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—The Lard Chief
Justice would nominate.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANKES feared that under any circumstances it
would be impossible to remove suspicion from the public
mind. Admitting that the Chief Justice did appoint, he
Would not draw on the front ranks of the profession for
the commission, and the consequence would be that the
barristers chosen must be of interior status even to those
Who presided over the county courts, the latter • being
Permanent, while the forme: were only transitory ap-
pointments. Then the duties of these commissioners
Were not clearly defined. They were to inquire and
report their opinions; that was to say, his opinion, for
tinder the Bill one commissioner might constitute a
court. It was said that the opinion of the commissioner
was not to influence the House. If not, why all this
trouble, and the expense to the country of five guineas
a day? And here he had another objection. The
mode of remuneration would make it the interest of
the
barrister employed to delay the inquiry for as
long a time as possible.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The
'louse would then be in this dilemma—either the deci-
sion would be final, and a borough might be disfran-
chised on the dictum of a barrister of little or no stand-
icg, or it was a nullity, and all the expense, trouble,
and delay would go for nothing. By the third clause
One commissioner might hold a court, and he had powers
Riven him greater than had ever been tolerated in this
country since the days of thJ star Chamber. The tenth
Clause gave the commissioner indemnity on all legal
Points, but there were also such things as points of ho-
nour, from which he could not be indemnified. He was
empowered to summon parties before him, and he might
compel them to expose and denounce other parties with
Whom he had been connected. This was a most invidi-
ous power. He (Mr. Bankes) had once had occasion to
summon a banker before a Committee of that House, but
having received a private intimation that the party in
question would commit suicide if the summons were per-
sisted in, he gave up the notion. It might be said that
he had shrunk from his duty, but these were points of
honour which could not be got over. He entreated the Noble
Lord to withdraw his sup port from thisßill,and to adopt the
course he had himself originally suggested. Let him in
each case appoint a Co:amittee of five, with powers to
examine witnesses on oath, and a decision would be ar-
rived at calculated to setisFy both the other House of
rarliament and the country.
Sir J. HANMER said that the course suggested in
this Bill had already been adopted in the case of Sud-
bury, and had received general approbation. The Hon.
and Learned Member for Dorsetshire objected to corn •
missioners as likely to be influenced by political bias;
but were Committees of that House entirely free from
suspicion?—(Oh, oh.) He remembered one notorious
ease—the borough of Nottingham.—(Hear, hear, and
cries of " Hull," and laughter.) Very well; he.merely
mentioned the cases to show that Committees had been
accused of political bias. He had watched the proceed-
ings at the various public meetings throughout the
country in support of Mr. Hume's motion, and though
he had observed many opinions put forward as to the
condition on which the franchise should rest, the mode
of taking votes and the duration of Parliaments, he had
never seen that the constituencies of any borough in
which such meetings had been held had declared that
they would commence the work of reform by
purifying themselves of corrupt practices. There was
no reason to suppose that the just pride of
the electors could be offended by a strict in-
. quiry in every case in which a constituency was now
misrepresented, not because of the death or resignation
of the late Member, but because bribery and treating
had prevailed at the last election. It had been com-
plained that the commissioners would decide in accord-
ance with any bias that might obtain in their own minds,
but that was impossible; all the commissioners had to
do was to collect evidence and embody that evidence in
a report, and on that report it would be for Parliament
to act. He denied that the inquiry would be as expen-
sive as some Hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose.
Mr. ANSTEY believed that the reason why many
'Hon. Gentlemen opposite supported this Bill was that
they believed it would have the eflict of advancing one
of the objects of Mr. Hume's motion to disfranchise the
small boroughs. Not only did this Bill take away the
right of trial by jury, vesting the whole power in the
commissioner without any appeal, but it offered a direct
premium to perjury. The whole Bill was open to ob•
sections of a similar character. Treating and bribery
were dealt with as if equally criminal, although
One was opposed to the law both of God and man,
and the other comparatively innocent. The conse•
quence of putting them in the same category would
be to induce the poor man, who could see nothing
corrupt in treating, to view bribery in the same light.
In accordance with his pledge he should feel it his duty
to oppose the further progress of this Bill.
Mr. HUDSON contended that no sufficient case of
corruption had been made out by the Hon. Baronet to
justify this measure, which proceeded entirely upon a
Principle of surmise. If treating were to be deemed a
corrupt practice, he saw no reason why they should not,
With equal reason, legislate against the influence of pro-
perty, or oven of eloquence, which, by falsifying the
fact,:, might lead men to a vote which, on calmer reflec-
tion, they would regret. Its effect would be to intro-
, 'lice heartburnings in several towns, the effect of which
Would be most prejudicial. The Honourable Member
► goose
Montrose was anxious for household suffrage; if the
'''aouse wanted that, they had it in the freemen of some
..ekisting boroughs ; but t object of thi s Bill was
1° extinguish that class ofhe electors. Ho was well
lquainted with the virtues and merits of freemen,
though he was not returned by that class. It was said
Chief
chief commissioner was to be named by the Lord
Justice ; but he had actually heard the gentle•
1100 already named by the promoter of this Bill.—
.Lrear, hear.) He understood the appointment was to
be,aegiven to the late Hon. Member for Bath.—(Hear.)
I'n. knew what it was to be examined for three days be-
lore a Committee of that House on election matters, and
to
have his banking accounts rummaged over and ex-
-. Posed to individuals of the opposite party. Some such
inquisitorial proceeding might take place under this Bill,
Which, though only applicable to 12 or 13 boroughs,
• might on a future occasion be applicable to 80 or 100.^
This would be a precedent in the next Parliament,
when Hon. Gentlemen opposite might perhaps be in a
minority.—(Hear, hear.) The measure would perpetuate
ill- blood in half the towns in the kingdom; it would be-
, come a perfect nuisance; parties bankrupt in fortune
ued character would busy themselves in getting up these
inquiries
and fomenting discord, while the respectable
classes would hold themselves aloof. Expenses the most
ruinous would be incurred; and this
was not the way to
purify a constituency.—(He
General, as the legal protector of hear.)her The Solicitor-
s ought to have taken care that no Majesty's subjects,
such a heavy penalty.—(Laughter exposed to
He hoped that
local authorities would mark their. disapproval of the
measure by refusing the use of their public buildings for
the proposed inquiries. He contended that the lover
classes were no more open to corruption than others.
Lord J. RUSSELL had hoped, after the. House had
consented to go into Committee, that the clauses of the
Bill would have been debated in the usual mode of car-
rying on the business.—(Hear, hear.) He must own his
disappointment, after the House had assented to the
second reading of the Bill, and after a long debate on the
question of going into Committee, the House having de-
cided on each occasion by a large majority in favour of
the Bill, that the whole question should now be argued
over again—not as to whether a formal inquiry should
be instituted in certain cases, but as to whether any Bill
of this kind should be entertained at all.—(Hear, hear.)
The
Hon. Gentleman who began the debate, had argued,
Its he very fairly might have done in a speech on the
second reading, that the inquiry ought to be before a
Committee
of that House; but the House having ap-
proved the piinciple of this Bill, and decided to go
a with it, it was surely wrong to recommence this
hadof opposition. The Honourable Gentleman who
111 just sat down had certainly added little to the
(else's means of judging of the clauses of the Bill.—
aughter.) lie argued that bribery and treating ought
detecting
considered venial offences, and ' that a Bill for
...seteeting and punishing them ought to be discouraged.
t_Ulear, hear.) His personal attacks on the Honourable
ftr,onet who had brought in this Bill ought not to weigh
"11 the House in considering the details of this meti-
i,4nre: (Hear hear.) He hoped the House would not
the discuss the general merits of the Bill. Whether
costs of prosecuting inquiries, but not those of de-
fer ti:ls,,them, should be allowed, was a very fair question
the c' Committee, and he hoped that to such questions
ommittee would address itself.
eetsr• BANKES said a few words in justification of the
he had pursued.
Al re
first G°DSON wished to know, in reference to the
aentea clause, whether the Lord Chief Justice had cons
rilin_.'stoo to accept the irksome duty of appointing the com •
Sir ers ?
j
had e„ • HANMER said that the Lord Chief Justice
mr.et!Sented to do so.
how fak-lODSON—That being se, the question arose
away its the House of Commons would consent to give
jurisdiction. He thought it was bad policy to
tern the Lord Chief Justice interfere in political mat-
the 'pazi.h? was strait' it would shake the confidence of
lc their legal tribunals. Besides, the clause
3 centred'
°f tihe _ contradictor in itself ; for whilst the appointment
spoiattice iliviFfTrissti°uosertansgew,as given to the Lord Chief Just
was lofterwalds given to the