The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-05 00:00:00

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Mr. HARDY was anxious to introduce a bill for the
better regulation of elections, and the total doing away
with bribery, He was astonished that something similar had
not been done before, Certainly the noble lord, during the
last session, introduced a bill to that effect; with the
general provisions of it he did not wish to interfere,
rout to the fist part of the details he ghoul i call the
attention of that house. He hoped that hon. members
and his Majesty's ministers would give their assistance
in correcting the abuses that existed at elections
dis-
position bribery. He gave the latter full credit for evincing a
position to root out corruption as far as was possible ; to
check it was possible ; to extirpate it be feared was not.
He was afraid they might wait long for the coming of the
time when men would be imbued with so much morality
as to refuse a bribe on that ground alone; therefore it be-
came their duty to take such measures as to put an end to
the system by laws. Man was so prone to the crime that,
without some very strong measures indeed, it would always
flourish. It was to consolidate and amend all the
laws on the subject, that he had imposed upon
himself the duty he was then performing, and
it was a vast undertaking fir him—(Hear)—b!“
he trusted that, with the assistance of the house, he
should be well able to perform it.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) He knew well that bribery was punishable at
common iaw, but something more was necessary. He ap
proved of that part of the Bribery Bill which disfrancl3ised
any voter who was proved to have accepted work
from a candidate even six months before the election.
Since the 2d Geo. IV., bribery had been so managed
as to render it impossible to cnnnect it with any pro.
vious promises ; and money was paid in a
most. unblushing manner after the election, with re-
ference—not to an express contract, but to a secret un-
derstanding or custom, so that the rent or value
of a vote core a proportion to the poverty of the voter,
or to the ambition of the candidate.—(Cries of " Hear.' )
The provisions of the act were entirely prospective, so that
unless the act of bribery was committed with some prey
ous engagement, it was impossible to render it punishable.
In consequence of the irregularity in the pleadings,

the party lost his cause.—(Hear, bear.) There-
fore, all bribes for having given a vote should be
placed on the same footing as those given for the promise
of a vote. If it should appear that the bribe was given
with referenee to a vote previously given, it should be
considered as a previous contract to purchase and sell
a vote. He thought it was absolutely necessary
to provide for the purity of election. He now came
to what was called the " Treating Act ;" if that
act was intended to prevent treating, it was most impro-
perly so called, for it, in fact, went to legalize all descrip-
tions of treating.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The committees
of the house had made decisions upon that subject of
various descriptions, and indeed the late Sir Arthur
Pigott said, that although he had attended Committees
of the House for 20 years he was -tillable to give any opi
nion to a candidate as to the law of treating. That act
was founded on a resolution of the house in the year 1677.
The object of this resolution was to prevent all species of
bribery or treating, and it was followed shortly after by
the 7th William 111., which permitted a candidate to
treat to the amount of 101. in his own name. He would
submit that if any entertainment be given during the
election, it be received by the Committee as
a proof of the criminal intention of the candidate. There
was another point upon which no doubt should exist ; that
was, with respect to the travelling expenses and loss of
time of voters, He thought no such expenses ought to
be allowed at all. Though the Reform Act, by increasing
the number of polling places, and diminishing the period
of election, had done much to mitigate this species of
expense, yet if some decided objection were not at once
taken, we should in a few years find voters residing only a
few miles even from the polling places claiming to be taken
up, and putting the candidates to great and unnecessary
expense. He was aware it was contended by some that
the voter was entitled to receive, and the candidate ought
to pay, the expenses of conveying the former from his
residence to the polling place. Some persons had attempted
to compare the voters to witnesses, whose expenses were
paid by the parties subocening them. But where was the
analogy between the situation of a candidate and a plain.
tiff or defendant? He thought it was rather to be com-
pared to the case of jurymen, who frequently came many
miles to the Assizes, and sometimes remained there eight
or ten days, at considerable expense and loss w themselves.
But they were fulfilling a public duty, and if they were
not paid their travelling expenses, how much lees should
they be paid who cime to exercise a franchise, uniformly
considered as one of the most valuable privileges that could
be conferred upon man—(Hear)—more particularly when
so many facilities had been afforded by the new Reform
Act, and the parties had so much shorter distances to
trivel ? He trusted the house would, in the language of
the bill, call on the constituency to vote freely and indiffe-
rently, according to the language of the act, and according
to the theory of the constitution.—(Hear.) With these
objects in view, he brought forward the present bill. It
would be necessary not to confine the provisions of that
bill to individuals; but also to extend them to places. He
thought also the time of petitions should be extended (as
we understood) to 28 days after the last act of bribery.
He proposed also to introduce a provision containing an
oath to be taken on the part of the candidate.—(Hear,
hear.) He saw very little use in administering an oath to
the voter at the place of election, unless an oath were also
administered to the candidate—(Hear, hear)—or unless
he declared (if they did not like an oath), that he had
not procured, nor would suffer his agents to procure, any
votes by any corrupt means, nor that lie would thereafter
pay any expenses that might be incurred to obtain votes
from any agent on his behalf.—(Hear, hear.) This would
be the most effectual blow to any attempt on the part of
agents to procure votes by improper means, as they would
not be very likely to pay slims of money at risk, which the
candidates had solemnly declared they would not be re.
spensible for. He did not intend to force his own opinions
on the house, but should wish the bill to be referred to a
committee embracing as many as possiole of those mem-
bers who constituted the committee on the bill of the noble
lord opposite.—(C,eers.)
Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who spoke in a very low tone
of voice, said it was not his intention to offer any oppasi.
torn to the motion, but that part of the measure which
referred to the time within which petitions against bribery
and corruption were to be presented, was unnecessary in
consequence of recent and existing regulations. It was
indeed, important that the presentation of the petition
should depend on the act of bribery, for be knew it to
have been a common practice for agents to wait till after
the limited time, sometimes till a year had elapsed, and
then pay the voters the various sums which had been cor-
ruptly promised them. This and all other methods of
corruption would most probably be put an end to, by
adopting the resolu'ionof the right hon. member for Mont-
gomeryshire.—( Hear. )
Mr. C. W. WYNN had not the slightest doubt of the
general concurrence of the house in the principles of the
present hill. Decisions had been come to by committees
last year, which extended tbe law beyond the words of the
act of Parliament, particuhrly with regard to treating,
and it was most desirable that the law should be perfeNly
clear on that point. He would ask those gentlemen v‘ho
had stood contests for counties, and who knew to what
height the eagerness of their partisans was carried—far
greater, indeed, than their own—whether those p trtisans
could be restrained from adopting such means as they
thought most efficacious to secure votes ? Would they
answer for preventing their friends from treating ?
(Hear.) If they did this, they would open a door to a
most extensive system of expense. He agreed with the
hon. and learned gentleman that no travelling expenses
ought now to be allowed to voters.—(Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. HUGHES HUGHES,
expressive of his approbation of the Bill,
Mr. HUME suggested to tbe hon. member, that the
difficulties to which he hid alluded, and the corruption
of which he complained, would be much more simply
and efficiently remedied by the introduction of the vote by
ballot, than by any of the methods which he bad pointed
out.—(Hear )
Mr. HARDY briefly replied, and leave was given to
brieg in the Bill.