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

BILL.

On the motion for the reading of the order of the day
for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. WALPOLE rose to tall the attention of the house
to the difficulties which surrounded this question. The
bon. member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) concurred in
the opinion expressed by is right hon. friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, on the second reading, that if
they came to the question of law they might deal judici-
ally. The right hon. friend thought the bill did not deal
strictly equitably, as it included the innocent as well as
the guilty, and they amounted to upwards of 100. (hear.)
Another part of the bill was not strictly equitable, as,
while it disfranchised the bribed it did not di-franshise
the briber. (hear, hear.) Nis right hon. friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said, on the occasion he
referred to, and said justly, and he obtained the acquies-
cence of the house, that in these two respects the bill
ought to be rectified, and he suggested that an in,
'traction should be moved, on going into commit-
tee, that the briber should be included with the
bribed, and also that they should consider whether the
whole of the freemen should be disfranchised, or whether
they should make a distinction between the innocent and
the guilty. Ho had taken the liberty of pointing out
those difficulties now, as he believed any instruction to
the committee must be moved upon the motion for read-
ing the order of the day. They could not put themselves
iu the right, unless an instruction should be given to the
committee to the effect he had stated. He should move
—l, That it be an instruction to the committee on this
bill, that they should have power to make provision for
including those who have been guilty of bribery for the
purpose of purchasing votes. " The committee must re-
ceive instructions to the effect, or they would be pre-
cluded from entering into the matter. The qeestion
was still surrounded wtth difficulties. Two courses
were open to them to adopt. The bill was not an equit-
able bill, as it was drawn up, and they should not pro-
ceed with it. The other course they had to adopt was,
to agree to the instruction he had suggested. The ope-
ration of the bill as it stood would be to disfranchise all
the freemen, amounting to between 500 and 600. The
Attorney-General bad examined the evidence in these
cases and bad caused two schedule] to be drawn up, the
one showing the bribed and the other the bribers. The
effect of separating the innocent from the guilty would
be to disfranchise 158 out of the whole number. If they
did not, they would be disfranchising about 400 who
were not guilty at all. The amendment of which the
hon. member for Cork had given notice would
have the singular effect, if it were adopted, of disfran-
chising every innocent voter, and would let all the guilty
escape with the exception of two. (hear, hear) If they
adopted the inotion of the hon. member for C irk, they
would let off all the guilty and disfranchise the innocent
—aud such legislation would be so direputable that he
could nut believe the committee would adopt it. On
previous occasions the house dealt with questions
of this kind, and he would state briefly what was
done. The Act of the sth and 6th Vict., chapter 67,
empowered the Crown to appoint certain commissioner,
to inquire into corrupt practices alleged to have been
committed, and to make a report to the house. Now,
several were so dealt with, either under the general or
special act. On two occasions where it was proved, in
the case of Sudbury and St. Albans, the bribery was
sestematic and extensive, it was propased to disfran
ohle the whole. The question then arose whether, if oor-
uptiori and bribery should be systematic and general,
how could they apply it here, where about 500 101.
householders and between 300 and 400 freemen were
proved to be innocent. That certainly would be a most
startling precedent to follow, and be was sure it would
not be adopted. Then there was the case of Yarmouth.
In that borough certain freemen were proved to have
been guilty of bribery, and the house disfranchised the
whole body, though the greater portion of them were
not gull y. The present bill was evidently formed on that
precedent , • but he would ask the house if they were pre-
parel to say that when a considerable portion, though
n lt the majority, of voters in Galway, here not proved
to be cn•rupt, they felt themselves at liberty to di:fran-
chise the whole ? If they were prepared to act in that
way with regard to the freemen, they must do the same
with the 101. householders. The course of proceeding
would not, in his opinion, be just, and he owned ho was
very unwilling to see it adopted. Then there was a third
mode of dealing with the question, and that was the
course suggested by the present Chief Justice of the
Common Pleee, when Attorney-General, in the cases of
Calterburv, Kingston:-upon-Hull, Barnstaple, and Cant-
bridge. That right hon. gentleman, with his acute legal
mind, said he would not follow the precedent in the case
of the borough of Sudbury br of Yarmouth, because it wa-
2?.)t3irecommended, but what he recommended was, t -) deal with
", s: i
found to he guilty, and with tho-e alone. A long
cicsiebla t
levltallpoowie7tthouonthetoccasion, and even in that case, he
the proceeding was not equitable,
as d be thought so hstill.
t He came to that conclusion orha,
this ground, namely, when you tell men that, if thry
furnish evidence to the Crownahaoti Parliament in eves
of bribery or corruption, they not be disfranchised
or punishe',, you may, if you break lt be act-
ing strictly within the act of Patliarne:tlotmnisoet, accord •
the resisted that
bills
ire to your promise. This was BO stoutly
tn right hon. gentleman had to withdraw
gether. Now, they could rot follow the precedent of ;IU:3--
Sud-
bury--they th ey could that of Yarmouth, but they would be
co/if-eluding right and wrong ; and if they f plowed that
cf Kingston-on-Hull, and others, they would have t“
coueider whether they could set aside the indemnity
which these men thought they should have, when they
gave their evidence. Now these were his difficulties,
and "now he thought there were only two courses to pur-
sue—one to refuse to go into committee, or, if they did
go into committee, to adopt the instructions he was pre-

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 in the instructions which he
proposed should be given to the committee. _ _

Col. FRENCH reminded the house that he had that 1
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 founded on a
report of a royal commission, the members of which
spent 11 days in an inquiry, and their report was, that
though bribery took place in 1857, there were no such
practices in 1852. It was a curious circumstance that
freemen were admitted in Galway, not by birth or
marriage, but because they belonged to an industrial
oscupation, and they amounted to upwards of 600.
The case made out was, that corruption was very gene-
ral am ,ng them, but during the entire examination
before the commissioners, that wag not proved, but the
very contrary. But what he chiefly relied on was, that
it was stated over and over agafn 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 who told 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
they 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 his 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 bad 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 citiesns ought to be disfran-
ch's id I 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. Albansand Yarmouth
in the former of which the borough had been disfran-
chised, and in the latter the freemen were disfranchised.
the Earl of Darby, too, had expressed an opinion that
corrupt places ought 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,
he 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-
nestly and discharge the duty which they owed to
their own character and the public.
Lard LOVAINE said he rose to vindicate the course
be had taken on the committee; and he begged to aid
that he, for one, would 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
dic-franchise those only who were guilty. (Hear, hear.)
Looking at all the circumstances, he should give his
opposition to any measure that would prosecute the in-
nocent and confound them with the guilty. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. Ssrjeant DEA.SY 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 guarantee of prosecution by the Commission to
those who might come forward and give evidence.
. .

Many had come forward under the inducement of that
solemn guarantee ; and it was now proposed that the
persons to. whom inducements were thus held out to
come forward, should be punished. He was no friend
to the system of franchise possessed by the freemen
of Galway, but he should like to see it abolished, not
by such a bill as that proposed, but by a Reform Bit.
Mr. MAGUIRE said the recommendation of the hon.
member for Cork was the most absurd of all the prepe-
,itions that had been submitted to the house during the
time that he (Mr. Maguire) had been in the house, and
he had, he might say, seen and heard some strange
things since he bad been in that house. The hon. mem-
ber proposed to punish not really the men who were
the cause of the crime, but 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 Clanricarde was a "purist,"
and he set Sir Thomas Burke in motion. The money
was given to some one, and some one gave it to Dr.
Browne, and it found its way to somebody else. He
thought that those who gave the bribes ought to be
p mished, and that if there were to be disfrarse'lisercent,
magi trates and all those in high places ought to be dis-
franchised. Punishment ought not to be inflicted on
the poor starving creatures, who were made the victims
of corruption by those who bribed them. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) He approved of the course recommended
by the hon. and gallant gentleman, the member for Ros-
common, to get rid of the bill altogether - and if they
were to meddle with the franchise, let it be not in the
manner proposed, but by some such Reform Bill as they
expected from the noble 1 )rd, and as the noble lord the
member for Tiverton, had in some measure said he would
become sponsor to.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, who rose amidst loud
cries for a division, said the bill before the house was
one of the greatest importance, and before dividing he
trusted that as the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole)
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. gentle-
man was inconsistent with that object, and that if his
proposed instruction to the committee was agre ed to
there would be no indemnity, while if the proposal
in the latter part cf his speech was accepted,
the bill had better never have been brought in at all,
and certainly ought not to have passed the second
reading. They ought, he thought, to take one
of two courses ; either to go on with the bill, or accept
the amendment of the hon. member fur Roscommon,
and reject it altogether. If they adopted the course pro-
posed by the right hon. gentleman, the bill would be,
as had been properly said, a bill of pains and penalties,
and include persons who, though thy had not votes in
Galway hal unfortunately become mixed up with those
proceedings. If the house did not disfranchiee the free-
men of Galway, after the evidence laid before it, it
would act contrary to the precedents in the case of
Great Yarmouth, and also those of Sudbury and St.
Alban's ; and yet now when evidence was before it dis-
closing corruption of the most disgraceful nature, they
were told that their hands were tied up by an indemnity
given under a general act of Parliament. The bill pro-
p sed to disfranchise the freemen of Galway, not as in.
dividuala but as a class ; and he begged the house to
remember the peculiarity of the freemen of Galway.
They were not members of any corporate body, but
were merely admitted as freemen first, in order that
they might afterwards in that capacity be placed on the
electoral roll. Before the Reform Act there was a
municipal body in existence. Since then there was no
such body, and these persons were therefore similar to
the potwallopers in this country. It bad been proved
that a very large proportion of them had received bribes,
and the proposition was that this corrupt body be dis-
franchised. He supported the bill because he contended
that the general act only gave an indemnity against the
leeal consequences of the acts of individual voters, but
did not preclude the house from future 1-gislation. If
the bill passed, it might di-franchise for the time being
some respectable persons ; but he believed they would.
all, or nearly all, be afterwards placed on the electoral
to 11 as rated occupiers instead of freemen, and therefore
no real injury would be inflicted on them by the bill.
On 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 else, no matter ho
general and how disgraceful the corruption and
bribery might be which was brought to light. He con-
tended there was no legal difficulty in the case, and
should 'support the bill.

The SPEAKER explained that in putting the motion
of the right hon. gentleman first, it had precedence of
that of the boo, member for Roscommon, and the effect
would be that if it was rejected the hon. member could
then put his motion on the question that the Speaker do
leave the chair.

lOn the question being put,
Lord PALMERSTON said he admitted there were
difficulties in the case ; but he thought the national and
proper course Wai to proceed with the bill introduced by
ais hon. friend, and to di-franchise the class of freemen
to which it had reference. It would be a very baedraen
ex-
ample and have a very bad effect upon the public • dand throughout the country if the bill were it d min
and no proceedings were taken after a cornawlissiorir'h.ani
bean issued ro make inquiries and had reported ;:re the evi•
deuce taken by them to the house. (Reel.) could
not see the f erce of the argument that these persons were
protected from disfranchisement by the indemnitywhe7
had been given them. He thought that indemnity could
enly be fairly and properly taken as securing them fie m
the legal consequences of their acts. (Rear.) On 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
whereas. the bill of hie hon. friend dealt with
them no a class. In feet, it appeared to him that, if the
ieetruction were agreed to, they might in future quite ee
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 argument,
cow used held good, preveet any legi,lation upon the
ea c alterwarde, or from taking any steps to prosecute
the parties guilty of it. He could not, therefore, 'tot,
fur the instruct:on. (Rear.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said the hon. member for Sheffield
had appealed to the Government to punish the briber,
as well as the bribed ; but the noble lord, in his anxiety
to purify the borough of Galway, asked them to take a
course which would punish the bribed, and not only le
off those who gave the bribes, but absolutely to place
the borough in the hands of those men who were the
west guilty of the two parties to the transaction. (Rear,
hear.) On the contrary, the course proposed by the
Government was intended to reach those who gave the
bribes, as well as those who took them, and he trusted
that the house would support that course. (Heir.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said there was an old proverb that,
What was sauce for the goose was also sauce for the