The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-27 00:00:00

that the fixing of polling• places ought to he left to the
grand jury. The litniLition of the duration of eh cion9
to or,e thy would ho n gr,•et boon.. . _

Sir W. SOMERVIIIE was glad to see that the Bid
seemed ;acceptable to. the House. The suggestions of
the. lion. Member for Kerry, with respect to the valua-
t,on, would receive the consideration of Government.
The question whether the borough franchise should be
dealt with in the same way as the county franchise
would receive the attention of Government in Gun-
tnittee.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped that the Bill would
be productive of social as well us political advantages
to Ireland—that it would do away with the conflicting
swearing respecting valuation which existed at present,
and induce landlords to grant leases to their tenants.
Mr. H. M. FOX hoped that the Government w ,uld
not delay the Biil, as the consti uencies of Ireland were
decreasing till they became almost ridiculous.
The Bill was then read a second time.

BOROUGH ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL.
On the motion that the Effuse resolve itself into Com-
mittee on this Bill,
Colonel SIBI'IIORP moved that the Bill he com-
mitb-d that day six month;'. The Hon. Baronet who
introduced this Bill had thought fit, to include Lincoln
amongst the nine boroughs with respect to which in-
quiry was to be made. ile had no fear of investigation
as far as Lincoln was concerned. He considered the
Bill tyrannical, unjust, and unsatisfacto►y. The Bill
gave a most tyrannical power of searching the books of
a gentleman's banker, and even the papers of his solici-
tor. He could tell the Hon. Baronet that there was far
more money spent in Hull at one election—he did not
say by the lion. Baronet—than was spent in Lincoln
from the year 1714 to the present time.—(Laughter.)
If such a Bill as this was allowed to pass, where
were they to stop? He hoped the Honour-
able Baronet in introducing this Bill was not acting
under the advice or direction of the Government.
If this BM went through Committee, which he should
endeavour to prevent, he should at another stage try to
secure a better attendance of Members than ordinarily
could be obtained in that House. If they were to have
inquiry at all, let it be a general inquiry. Don't leave
out the Flint districts, Hull, Shrewsbury—(Laughter)—
London, Tavistoek, and (said the Honourable Member
in a shout) Bandon-bridge.—(Renewed laughter.) It
was a shuffling, mean, miserable, pettyfogging, dirty,
villanous measure, and that was but an imperfect ex-
pression of his feelings.
The question having been put,

Mr. C. PEARSON said his accidental absence from
the House had prevented him from moving the amend-
ment of which he had given notice. This circumstance
placed him in a somewhat peculiar position. In his judg.
went this Bill looked in the right direction, but his ob-
jection to it; was that he feared it would not be e ffi-
cient for the purpose it contemplated. Bribery was of
all others the crime for which the penalties were most
Aringent, but yet the number of the offences proved and
punished bore the smallest possible proportion to the
number of the offences committed. It was a crime
which had increased, was increasing, and he feared
would continue to increase, unless a new law was applied.
Human nature so-med insufficient to bear up against
the te:nptation. The Reform Bill had been tar from
curing the disease. In many cases bribery had been
;realer since the passing of that Bill than before. —(op-
position cries of "Hear, hear.") If they looked into
their blue-books, they would find Mr. Parkes, Mr. Cop.
pock, and other election agents, stating that whether
they took Stafford, Warwick, Ipswich, or other places.
the system of bribery would be found to have spread
considerably. Lord Palmerston, in 1837, declared his
opinion that, "at the preceding election bribery had
exceeded anything that was ever known within those
walls." The fault was, that under the present law every
one was interested in concealing bribery, and no one was
interested in exposing it. What he would have was,
either an effectual prevention of bribery, or an effected
punishment for it. He therefore desired that a second
schedule to this Act should contain all towns with above
10.000 inhabitants, and that in the event of a conviction
tor bribery, the nearest unrepresented town to that
convicted should have the Member, thus giving it a dis-
tinct interest in the conviction of the town in which
oribery was said to be committed. The effect of this
would be to secure in every case a :)earehing and con-
clusive inquiry. Suppose, for example, Horsham was
convicted, Croydon, a town of 16,000 inhabitants, would
have the franchise. If Derby were convicted, Belper,
having proved the case, would be united with it. He
asked for this alteration as a small instalment of re-
form.

Mr. BANKES opposed the Bill. He denied that the
Horsham Committee had made any impeachment of
corrupt practices against the (-lectors of that borough.
The preamble of the present Bill was therefore erroneous,
and the insertion of the borough in the Bill unjust. He
could not think that the House, in its crusade against
treating, was passing the limits of a jurt correction of
malpractices, and unduly checking the exercise of the
simplest and most innocent hospitality. As matters
*ecined going now, a ma❑ could not indulge in the Old
English impulse to give his hiends a dinner without
losing his seat for his kind-heartedness.

Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the Bill, though on dif-
ferent grounds to those of the Hon. Member for Dorset-
shire. The case of Great Yarmouth was kept by the
Government as a sort of standing excuse for proceedings
such as were contemplated by the Hon. Baronet's mea-
sure. The Commissioners who were to be appointed
under the Bill would be open to party prejudices. It
was an unwarrantable infringement on the rights of
constituencies, and also an interference with the pri-
•ileges of the House, as if they could not deal with such
cases of bribery us were cited of their own proper
authority.

Sir J. HOBHOUSE considered the Bill to be partial,
unjust, and oppre.sive, and as such demanded the
strongest opposition. He would tell the Hon. Member
for L'imbeth that the borough which he represented
contained a constituency as pure as that which sent him
to th it House. If a fair and general Bill were brought
in, tending to remedy the evils complained of, he would
be ready to give it his cordial support; but so long as
the abuses which generally prevailed in the practice of
elections remained unreformed, ho would oppose by every
means in his power the singling out of particular cases,
and of making them the subjects of inquiry, as was pro-
posed by the Bill before the House. He had stated that
he believed the Bill to be partial and unjust; he would
also characterise it as tyrannical and unconstitutional,
and though sorry to differ from his frien:l4 around him
he thould resist the progress of the Bill during its pre-
sent and all its future stages.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the violent
opposition to the Bill was not properly directed. The
question before the House was whether they were deter-
mined to put down bribery and corruption. It was very
well to say the Bill was partial; but would those who
opposed it on that ground support a general Bill, if such
were to be brow ht in? He (lid not believe they
would. The Bill proposed to examine into cases of
bribery which had been proved to exist in certain bo-
roughs; and if it was contended that the majority of
English boroughs were corrupt, he denied most strenu-
ously that such was the fact. It was all very well fur
the present Hon. Member for Lincoln to defend the
purity o. that borough as far as he was concerned; but
former election proceedings in that place had not been
30 pure, but, on the contrary, a Select Committee had
reported to the House that, in the election before the
last, a gross system of treating and bribery hid pre-
vailed there, in which the lion, and Gallant Member for
Lincoln had been stated to have taken part. [Colonel
Sibihorp here exclaimed " That is false."] The Bill
before the House was calculated to check such practices
In particular cites where they were proved to have oc-
curred, so as to operate upon the whole of the borough
constituencies, and he sincerely trusted the llouse would
not delay further to go into Committee upon it.
Mr. STUART opposed the Bill, not because it pre-
vented bribery, but because it sought to inquire into
what was alleged to be bribery in an illegal and uncon-
stitutional manner. It was a Bill inflicting pains and
penalties on the poorer class of voters—(Hear, hear)—
and it was brought forward by the Hon. Member for
Montrose., who complained that the suffrage was not
sufficieetly extended. It was a piece of ex post facto
legislation, and as such should meet with his decided
opposition.—(Hear.) He conjured the House gravely
co consider the provisions of this measure before they
pledged themselves to a course which might plunge the
whole electoral system into interminable difficulties.
Mr, HUME said, that the object of the Bill was
inquiry, not punishment. As to the accusation of its
being ex post facto in its character, every trial was an
ex postfActo proceeding, and in this case legislation was
a necessary consequence of acts which had been dis-
covered by Committees of that House.
Mr. HENLEY said that the Bill was not to try a
roan for an offence he had committed, but to pass a new
law creating a new offence. He objected to it as includ-
ing a great number of boroughs against whom very dif-
ferent amounts of corruption were charged, and giving
to them all the same sweeping condemnation. The word
" corrupt" was used in the Bill; he should like to know
the exact meaning attached to it. Some might think
the giving a glass of beer to a voter was corruption ;
others might think that for a Government officer to go
down to a dockyard and promise the voters some of the
good things which those who had the patronage in those
establishments had to bestow was corruption. He did
not say it was. But what he said was, that to carry on
this inquiry by means of the public purse, and by paid
witnesses, would constitute a dangerous precedent.
Fur, be it remembered, there was no money Committee
to be Paid
for the defence. In any case in which h
had recommended further inquiry, and further furth
be er pro-
ceedings were necessary, let the inquiry made us to
that case, but let them not try all in one general in-
dictinenL
Mr. COCKBURN would give his ccordialpsauspspi
passing
support
theto
the Bill, and he hoped the House would,
Bill, show its determination to put doet.nhebrßibir
w yaisnneovtertyo
shape.—(llear, hear) The object of
distranchtse these boroughs, bus tothiensstiptouze.awnhionqwuoirtiyi,d,
by means of commissioners an h
have the opportunity of examining witnessesuponohaetre,
which a Committee of the House could not do. T
was nothing of an inquisitorial or ex post facto nature in
the Bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the whole object of the
whether the offences had been
committed. With
inquiry was to as cer
regardtain
to the question as to whether
the giving a man a glass of ale or a Government situa-
tion in a dockyard to influence a vote, was to be con-
sidered corruption, he
looked upon the one as well as
the other as an offence which ought to be put down.
After a few words from Mr. ARKWRIGHT, which were
not heard, the House divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee ... 166
Against it .
Majority
—BB
After a few words from Sir J. Ilanmer, Sir H. Wil-
loughby, and Lord Courtenay, the House went into
Committee pro forms, and on the House resuming ob-
tained leave to sit again.