The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-21 00:00:00

pared to move, and afterwards seriously to consider and
debate the subject judicially, and not to take any step
by which injustice would be perpetrated. The right hon.
gentleman then handed io the instructions which he
proposed should be given to the committee.
Col. FRENCH reminded the house that he had that
evening given notice that if the bill should go into com-
mittee, he would move that it be committed that day six
months, and he now rose for that purpose. The noble
lord the member for Northumberland was the author of
the bill; but he would remind him of what occurred in
the borough of Liverpool, where 2,611 persons were
bribed, and had received sums in the way of bribes to a
considerable amount. The present bill was foundedsofwhich
on
a
report of a royal commission, the m
thoughsp en t 11
bribery
days in aninquiry,i
1857, there
hetbire;reebpeworretrewna so,
suchtha
practices in 1852. t
took place
ia
Galway,curiou s
not circumstancebybirt
birth
that
freemen were ad
marriage, but because they belonged to an industrial
miltttedwas in a
occupation, and they amounted to upwards of 600.
The case made out was, that corruption was very gene-
ral among them, but during the entire examination
before the commissioners, that was not proved, but the
very contrary. But what he chiefly relied on was, that
it was stated over and over again by members of those
men, that they had nob received a single shilling. By
their present proceedings they were guilty of a breach
of faith towards them, because it was expressly enacted,
that every man examined, and whotold the truth, should
not in any manner be punished or disqualified. Now,
however, the greater portion of those who were examined
were proposed to be disfranchised, notwithstanding that
'bey held the certificate of the commissioners, that they
should be exempt. He moved that the bill be committed
that day six months.
Mr. CLIVE said that two courses were proposed to
the house to adopt, one to get rid of the bill altogether,
as proposed by the gallant colonel in hie amendment,
and the other by the right hon. gentleman opposite.
Now, in his opinion, if either were adopted, they might
as well at once take the Corrupt Practices Bill, and put
it into the fire. The right hon. gentleman said that out
of 450 voters, not more than 150 voted.
Mr. WALPOLE—I beg your pardon. I said 250.
.Mr. CLIVE would now describe the nature of this
constituency. Before the Reform Bill they had no fran
chise unless what was conferred upon them by the Lord
Mayor, in the nature of " freedom " and at that time
the constituency amounted to about 700 voters. By the
Reform Bill the nature of the constituency was some-
what changed. When that bill was passed certain pri-
vileges and rights of voting were conferred on the town.
It was proved that 250 of the constituency had acted
corruptly, but the question was raised, whether the
innocent and respectable citizens ought to be disfran-
chised ? He thought a great offence had been commit-
ted, and that punishment ought to mark it. Reference
had been made to the cases of St. Albansaad Yarmouth
in the former of which the borough had been disfran-
chised, and in the latter the freemen were disfranchised.
Lie Earl of Darby, too, had expressed an opinion that
cerrupt places aught to be disfranchised. Motives of pre-
judice had been attributed to the commissioners, but
nothing could be more unjust. So far as he was able to
answer the hon. and gallant member for Roscommon,
ho must say he did not see on what grounds the hon.
member could propose getting rid of the bill altogether,
and he did hope that the house would proceed ear•
neatly and discharge the duty which they owed to
their own character and the public.
Lord LOVAINE said he rose to vindicate the course
he had taken on the committee; and he Legged to add
that he, for one, woul i never be a party to prosecute, or
inflict injury upon the innocent. There was one or two
courses for them to pursue—either to disfranchise the
whole town, including those who were not guilty, or to
disfranchise those only who were guilty. (Einar, hear.)
Looking at all the circumstances, ho should give his
opposition to any measure that would prosecute the in-
nocent and confound them with the guilty. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. Serjsant DEASY said if they were to follow
the course advised that night with respect to this
case, they would render the bill, not a legislative
measure to deal with the offending class, but a bill
of pains and penalties, and against the positive legis-
lative gnarautee of prosecution by the Commission to
thou who might come forward and give evidence.
.Many Lad crime forward under the inducement of that
selema guarantee; and it was now proposed that the
persons to whom inducereweee were thus held out to
come forward, should be punish: d. He was no fete id
to the system of franchise possessed by the freemen
of Galway, but he should like to see it abolished, 7.0 t
by such a bill as that proposed, but by a Reform 8.1.
Mr. MAGUIRE said the recommendation of the hon.
member fur Cork was the most ab-urd of all the prepo-
Neils that had been submitted to the house durirg the
time that he (Mr. Maguire) had been in the house, and
he had, he might say, seen and heard some strange
things sines he hal been in that house. The hon. mem-
her proposed to punish not really the men who were
the cause of the crime, bat the victims whom they had
corrupted—that was to say, the innocent instead of the
guilty. If the rich men did not bribe, the peer could
not receive the bribe. Lord Clauricerde was a "purist,"
and he set Sir Thomas Burke in metier. The money
was given to some one, and some one gave it to Dr.
Prowee, and it f eruct its way to somebody else. He
thought that those who gave the bribes ought to be
p oi,119(1, and that if there were to be &strata tisement,
magi trat,s and all those in high places ought to he die-
franchised. Punishment ought not ti be Lflicted on
the peer starving creatures, who were made the victim..
of corruption by those who bribed them. (Rear, hear,
and laughter.) He approved of the course recerransniiec
by the hon. and 12,,a11-ti,t I.- it
consmoc, to get rid cf the bill altogether; and if they
were to meddle with the franchise, let it be not in the
manner proposed, but by some such Referur Bill as they
expected from the noble 1 ird, and as the noble lord the
member for Tiverton, hal in eorne measure said he would
become sponsor to.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, who rose amidst loud
cries ter a division, said the bill before the house wes
one of the greatest importance, and before dividing he
trusted that as the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Welpele)
had appealed to the house to act judicially and without
any feeling of arty, that it would do. It appeared to
him, however, that the speech of the right hon.
roan was inconsistent with that object, acrd that if ihs
proposed instruction to the cannnittee was agr. ad to
there would ho no indemnity, while if the proposal
in the latter part of his speech was accepted,
the bill had better never have been brought in at all,
and certainly ought not to have passed the i.oconi
reading. They ought, he thought, to take one
of two cour,,,a ; either to go on with the bill, or accept
the arneedment of the hon, member Lr Roscommon,
and reject it altogether. If they adopted the course !.ro-
posed by the right hen• gentleman, the bill wouli he,
as had been properly said, a bill of pains and penalties,
arid limbed° persons who, though th-y had not votes in
Galway had uni.rtunate:y become mixed up with these
proceediree•tee. If the house did Lot ditfranchiee the free-
men of Galway, Lft,r the evidence laid before it, it
would act contrary to the precedents i s the case of
Great Yarmouth, en I also those of Sudbury and St.
Atban's ; and yet now when avi,ie7ic3 was before it die-
closing corrupti in of the most disgraceful natures they
were told that their hands were tied up by an indemnity
given under a general act of Parliament. The bill pi o•
p sed to di'franchise the freemen of Galway, not as in•
elivi lulls but as a class ; and he begged the house t
remember the pecnliality of the freemen cf Galway.
They wore not members of say corporate body, but
were merely admitted as freemen first, in order that
they might afterwards in that capacity be placed on the
elec:oral roll. Before the Re orai Act there was a
municipal body in existence. Since then there was no
such body, and these persons were therefore similar to
the, pot wallopers in this country, It had been proved
that a very large proportion of them had received bribes,
and the Troposit:on was that this corrupt body be die-
franchised. He supported the bill b cause he contended
that the general acs (rely gave an indemnity against the
less! consequences of the acts of individual voters, but
did not preclude the house from future 1-gislatiou. It
the bill passed, it might di-franchise for the time being
come respectable persees ; but ha believed they would
all, or nearly ail, be atherwarde placed on the doctoral
r li as rated occupiers instead of freemen, and therefore
no real injury would be inflicted on there by the bill.
Oa the other hand, if the bill was rejected on the
plea of indemnity, it would render every future in
quiry a delusion and a mockery, and preclude the
house from legislating in any case, no matter ho se
gsueral and how disgraceful the eerruption and
bribery might be which was brought to light. He con-
tended there was no legal difficulty is the case, and
should support the bill.
The SPEAKER explained that in putting the motion
of the right hon. gentleman first, L had precedence of
that cf the hon. member for Roscommon, and tbc,heaerkceeoffruedlcodt
twhoeubldpub tha
tillii3ftiitortlvaosn t rejectedbe
question the
thon.:ot the meSmp
leave the chair.

On the question being rut,
diffilacourditiP,es Aio the case L NIE RlTr said he admitted there w
but bethought the national and proper course was to proceed with the bill introduced by
tboiswhboine.hfirtiebnadd, arenfderteunduelifralntolawise tldhei)celaasaveorfy freemen
to
and have a very bad effect upon the public mind
and throughout the country if the
orme withdrawn,
and no proceedings were taken after awce
bean issued ro snake inquiries and hattlareeporofeicilte°liheota•idid•
dence taken by them to the house.
not see the force of the argument that these persons. were
protected from disfranchiseMent by the, indemnity which
bad been given them. He thought that indemnity could
only be fairly and properly taken as securing them froth
the legal consequences of their acts. (Hear.) Oa the
other hand, he thought that the motion of the right hon.
gentleman opposite would be a direct violation of that
indemnity, because he proposed to inflict punishment on
individuals, whereas the bill of his hon. friend death w:th
them as a class. Pu flet, it appeared to him that, if the
instruction were agreed to, they might in future quite as
well not make any inquiry into cases of bribery and cor-
ruption, because the very evidence upon which that bri-
bery and corruption was proved, would, if the arguments
now used held good, prevent any legislation upon the
awn afterwards, or from taking any steps to prosecute
the parties guilty of it. He could not, therefore, vote
for the instruction. (cear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said the hon. member for Shefflild
tad appealed to the Government to punish the bribers
ag well as the bribed ; but the noble lord, in his anxiety
to purify the I.srough of G away, asked them to take a
course rtritlsawhich would punish the bribed, and not only le!
she borough
who gave the. bribes,,but absolutely to place
borough in the hands of those men who were the
most guilty of the trio patties to the transaction. (Hear,
contrary, the course proposed by the
bGeoa;:)na
ruOea hntt'' wasinutended to reach those who gave the
as well
would
aa t_ se who took them, and he tru,,ted
tbiraibotteb,
the bo Id support that course. (Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said there was an old proverb that, ' What was sauce for the goose was also sauce for the