The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-05 00:00:00

he trusted that although minor matters might not be
agreed upon in detail, the great object in view might ne-
vertheless be practically obtained.
DISEASED SHEEP.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR inquired of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the President of the Board of Trade whether a
rumour had reached him to the effect that 1,500 diseased
sheep had been brought to Smithfield-market?
elr. LABOUCHERE said that, though he had reason
to believe that diseased sheep were sometimes brought
to Smithfield for sale, the rumour in question had not
reached him. When sheep of that description were
brought to the market, it became the duty of the au-
thorities of the market to take care to prevent them
from being brought into consumption, in a manner cal-
culated to injure the public.
SUPPLY.

Colonel SIBTHORY wished to know from the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government when he proposed
to go into Committee of Supply.
Lurd JOHN RUSSELL said he proposed to take the
Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill first, and then he
should wove that the House go into Committee of Supply.
FACTORY BILL.

Mr. M. GIBSON, seeing the Right Hon. Gentleman
the-Secretary of State for the Howe Department in his
place, wished to put to him a question concerning the
operation of the Factory Bill. Several convictions had
lately taken place under the Act, in which the construc-
tion of the statute had been disputed. In some cases
where a young person or a female had been found in a
factory, it was at once presumed that he had been there
from the time of opening the factory, and although he
might not have been there ter more than an hour, he
was taken to have been at work over the ten hours, and
the master was made liable to conviction. Now, if the
construction of the Act were capable ut bearing an in-
terpretation to justify a conviction under the absurd cir-
cumstances, it was moat desirable that it should be re-
considered and amended.
Sir G. GREY said he was aware of the point to which
the lion. Gentleman had alluded, and that he should
give it his best consideration. There were also soii.e
other doubtful points that had arisen under the Act, but
they were in no way connected with the class of cases
which the Hon. Member had mentioned.
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the motion that the order of the day be read for
going into Committee on the Corrupt Practices at Elec-
tions Bill,
Sir DE LACY EVANS called the attention of the
Noble Lord at the head of. the Government to the im-
perfect state of the law respecting treating at elections.
lle had been on the Committee appointed to inquire into
the validity of the return of the lion. Member for North
Cheshire, and although numerous eases of treating were
brought before the Committee, still none of them were
proved against either the sitting Member or his agents,
and the Committee were unable to act. Ile thought in
the cases of boroughs that the law had been pressed with
considerable severity on this point, and he believed it it
were so stringently pressed iu county elections, that
there were few county Members ;that would be able to
retain their seats iu that House. He should be glad to
know from the Noble Lord what the state of the law
really was in such a state of things, and whether such
cases as he had described were of a character to dis-
qualify the sitting Member.
Lord J. RUSSELL explained, that where cases of
corrupt treating were nut brought home to a sitting
Member or his agents, the law was not intended to
operate to his prejudice. Teem were some cases which
could hardly bo said to constitute treating ; but where
treating was upeuly and systematically carried on by the
issue of tickets for voters, it was quite clear that the
law, as proposed cow, was the same as it had always
been, and that it would be operative against the Mem-
ber in whose behalf such a state of things might be
proved. It was quite certain that the law should be
made to operate strictly where corruption, through the
medium of treating, was proved to the satisfaction of a
Committee.
Lord COURTENAY considered that the notice of
the House ought to be especially directed to the ques-
tion of refreshments. The extent to which the system
went was such that the Commi tee IMIIIO sat upon the
election more immediately under consideration felt that
they would not be discharging their duty if they failed
to bring the matter before the House. lie, therefore,
moved that the evidence be printed that it might be
formally brought under the notice of the House.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said he believed it was very
well understood that in every case where an election was
about to take place, a candidate was called upon, and
asked what he meant to expend on the contest, and it
was expected that he would at least keep to his engage-
ment in that respect, and if not prepared to do so he
would have very little chance of his seat. He thought,
in some particular cases, refreshments ought to be given,
and, as lung as hospitality existed in this country, he
hoped it would be so. lie thought that he could not
deny to the constituent in a county what he gave to the
postboy, and ho thought that the Noble Lord ought to
lay down the law distinc ly as to what was and what was
not bribery.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY admitted that the Noble
Lord had clearly stated what the law was—to give to a
pour voter, who came from a distance to the poll, necessary
refreshment, ought nut, undoubtedly, to be regarded as
bribery.
Mr. BRIGHT said if he understood the ll.m. Mem-
ber (Mr. Vernon Smith) rightly, the Hon. Member said
that there might be treating without corrupt voting.
The Noble Lord had stated that there were 2,000 cases
where corrupt votes were proved in this way. If he
octrise were to be allowed that hosp:telities were to be
exercised towards voters, it would throw the counties
into the heeds of the most a ealthy, and it was not hos-
pitality at all. Candidates did not dispense their hospi-
tality in that way to their antagonists.—(hear, and
laughter.) He thought that the law which was dealt out
to borough voters ought also, to be dealt out to count
voters.—(He r.)
Colo. el SIBTHORP would, for his part, support
Christian charity.—(Hear, and a laugh.) If a poor
voter were to call upon him, say a Reverend Gentle-
man, and he should ask him to tale a glass of wine, was
that to be considered " corrupt treating?"—(Laughter.)
He must, however, say that he considered the Noble
Lord's Bill was a partial Bill, and if the Noble Lord had
dealt in the Bill with the county Members as he was
dealing with the borough Members, the benches would
be filled with county Members.
Mr. SPOONER believed if there had been any county
proved guilty of corrupt bribery that county would be
put into the schedule, iu the same way as the boroughs.
He, therefore, thought that the distinction sought to
be made as between counties and boroughs, by the Hon.
and Gallant Member (Sir De Lacy Evans), was not quite
correct.
Mr. HOBIIOUSE should be glad to hear what the
opinion of the Right Hon. Baronet (the Member for
Tainwortb) was as to the law upon this subject.
Sir R. PEEL said that the Noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) had most correctly, in his opinion, stated what
the law was on the point under consideration; and what
it was, it was 150 years ago. He apprehended the law
to be that if any treating should be proved as having
taken place after the first day of the writ of summons, it
might be supposed to constitute corrupt treating; but
mere innocent treating had been allowed under the law
for the last 150 years.
Mr. HENLEY thought that the law had been most
correctly laid down, both by the Right Hon. Gentlemen
the Member for Bute and the Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth ; but according to some Hon.
Members any hospitality might be considered corrupt.
Now, what was said by the Hon. Gentleman the Chair-
man of the Committee? He said that neither the sitting
Member nor his agent had been guilty of the corrupt
treating which prevailed. What, then, was the House
to do ? If a rich man met a poor voter on the road, and
took him into his carriage, would that constitute bribery?
He believed, what he had long believed, that the
House would be driven. to legislate on this subject.—
(Hear.) If, for instance, in counties where poor voters
live ten or more miles off from the place of polling, as-
sistance were not given to them to come up, they would
be disfranchised.—(Heur.) He thought that there were
cases wherein assistance ought to be given to the poor
voter in this way.—(Hear, hear.)
The House then resolved itself into Committee, and
the fifth clause was proposed.
Mr. 110BHOUSE saw that by this clause the Com-
missioners to be appointed under the Bill were to re-
ceive their appointments from the Judges. Now he
was anxious to record his opinion against the appoint-
ment of Commissioners by the Judges, for be thought
it most objectionable to mix the Judges up in any way
with political appointments, and that to do so was in
in opposition to the spirit of the constitution. He took
the Bill to be a Bill of pains and penalties—he took
it 'to be a Bill of disfranchisement—(Hear, hear)—and
that being the case, he put it to the House in what
situation would the Judges be placed. He thought that
the seat of justice should be kept not merely pure, but
" above suspicion." He must also express his opinion
that appointments conferred, as those were intended to
be conferred, upon the bar, would take away from the
bar its independence, and make it subservient to the
Judges. He happened to know something of the bar,
and he wished to see it independent, and, above all,
independent of the Judges. Indeed, the Judges now
on the bench, in almost all cases, obtained their ele-
vation by the distinction which they achieved in
connexion with some remarkable case, which forced
them into notice while members of the bar. He con-
sidered that the patronage, under all circumstances,
ought not to be in their hands, and that the hands
in which it ought to be were those of the Virat Lord of
the Treasury, who should appoint the Commissioners,
and be responsible fur the appointments. It mig
t be
said that the Government had too much patronage; but
he was of opinion that they had not too much patronage,
and that they ought not to eschew it. The Speaker was
are impartial person, and he would rather see the appoint-
ments vested in him than in the Judges. His own idea
would be, that the first Minister of the Crown should ac-
cept the patronage, but, as ho thought he should not ob-
tain support in that proposition, he should move the
omission of the words ho objected to.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that ho thought
the Judges might be safely
trusted with these appoint-
ments. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to pass.
Mr. HENLEY said that it was must desirable to keep
the Judgrs free from political imputation. It was, how-
ever, difficult to say iu whom the appointment should rest.
He thought it would be better to name parties in the
Bill, and renew them from session to session as it might
be desirable.

Mr. EWAItT said that he concurred in the impro-
priety of giving these political appointments to the
Judges. Ile thought the Speaker should have the ap-
pointment.

Colonel SIBTEIORP said he should be prepared to
give every opposition to this clause and the Bill gene-
rally.
Mr. HUDSON objected to the remuneration allowed
by the Bill to the barristers who may be appointed, for
iu his opinion they ought to have the assistance of the
best men at the bar. lie objected, therefore, to give
thew such power, because he thought they were not the