The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-12 00:00:00

an Act passed in the 29th of Charles the Second, 170 years
ago. He had referred to that Act only that evening, and it
contained many restrictions which ought not to be revived.
There was an express prohibition against any person entering
au inn or lodging-house on Sundays. The sale of several
articles was forbid, which at this day would occasion much
inconvenience. He would only mention one—fruit : he begged
to say that the prohibition of the sale of ripe fruit during the
summer months would be most improper, and a very great
hardship upon th 3 inhabitants of large towns. He would not
trouble the House with any further allusion to that Act, but
begged to give notice, that if prohibitions such as he had
mentioned were introduced into the Bill of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, it should have hisdecided opposition.

Mr. HARDY defended the Bill of the last session of Par-
liament. •

Mr. NICHOLL should oppose any clause in the BiH which
would have the effect of restricting the rational enjoyments of
the poorer classes of tho community ; but he admitted that a
measure which would prevent desecration of the Sabbath was
necessary.
Mr. H. THE VOR (as we understood) should not oppose
the Bill if it did not trench upon the enjoyments of the poorer
classes ; otherwise he should, as far as in him lay.
Mr. O'CONNELL would not oppose the introduction of
the present Bill if it were the same as that of the last session,
as that measure contained no one clause which gave the rich
a preference over the poor. He,-however, thought that the
House could not be too cautious of legislating on the subject of
the Sabbath, or of interfering at all in what was, after all, a
mere matter of conscience. Legislatorial interference was
generally more detrimental to th best interests of religion
than any little infringement of the sacred solemnity of
Sabbath could be.

Sir A. AGNEW could assure the House that his Bill was
more objected to by the rich than by the poor, and moreover,
that if he put it to the opinion of the country he would have a
majority of the latter in its favour.
Sir J. CAMPBELL believed the motiveq of the Hon.
Baronet in respect to the Bill of the last session to be most
pure, but he was bound to add that nothing could be•more mis-
chievous than it was calculated to prove had it been permitted
a trial. It interfered with all classes of the community, high
and low, rich and poor. It afforded enjoyment to none, and it
was moreover inquisitorial in its nature, and capable of being
made the instrument of great tyranny and oppression to all.
With respect to the Bill before the House, he ( Sir J. Camp-
bell) saw nothing to object to in it. Therefore it should have
his support.
Sir A. AGNEW suspected the Hon. and Learned Member
for Edinburgh, in common with many other cavaliers against
his Bill, had never read it. _ _ _

Mr. HA WES would simply ask the Hon. Member for
Shaftesbury a plain question respecting the object of his mea-
sure. Was the Bill intended to put down Sunday trading
solely, or was it intended to revive the whole of the odious
Act of 29 Charles 11. ?

Mr. POULTER replied that it referred exclusively to the
suppression of Sunday trading.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
EXPENSES OF ELECTIONS.

Mr. HUME brought forward his motion, " To call the
astei.tion of the House to the Report of the Committee of last
Session on the expenses attendant upon the elections of Mem-
bers to Parliament." After some discussion, chiefly in fa-
vour of the measure, _

Leave was the given to bring in the Bill with a proviso that
it was to extend to Ireland.
CONVEYANCING IN SCOTLAND.

The LORD-ADVOCATE moved for leave to bring in a
Bill to regulate the sequcstration of the estates of bankrupts in
Scotland.

Mr. MURRAY expressed his satisfaction at having this
measure brought forward again. He should be most happy to
see it rendered more effectual than that before proposed.
Sir J. CAMPBELL said such a Bill was much wanted.

Mr. WALLACE expressed a hope that the Learned Lord
would introduce some measure for improving the system of
conveyancing in Scotland. At present the system was ex-
pensive and every way disgraceful to the country.
Mr. C. FERGUSON hoped the measure suggested by
the Learned Lord would be persevered in and carried through
Parliament. As to the system of conveyancing, it was most
oppressive in Scotland.
Major,G. BRUCE said Scotland was much indebted to
the Learned Lord for his valuable suggestions. He hoped
such measures of improvement in the law would be introduced
as would prove satisfactory to Scotland.
The LORD ADVOCATE said his wish was to have full
information on the subject of conveyancing before he proposed
any measure. It had been referred to the Law Commis-
sioners, and it was better to wait for their report.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Sir G. GREY rose to move for a Select Committee to
consider the most effectual means of preventing bribery, cor-
ruption, and intimidation in the election of Members of Par-
liament. A Bill had been brought in last session upon this
subject, but it did not pass the other House, and in his opinion
it would be better to wait for the report of the Committee he
now meant to move for before any similar Bill should be pro-
posed. His object in moving for this Committee was to
inquire into a different matter, that to which he alluded
was intimidation at elections.—( Loud cheering.) The
House had before recognised the principle as regarded
bribery and corruption. There was no statute that had
reference to intimidation, though there were some which
provided against violence at elections. Now it seemed to
him that it was the duty of the House to take steps for the
prevention of violence as well as intimidation. It ought to be
equally criminal in the eye of the law to influence men in their
votes by threats, by placards, or by emblems of any kind--
( Cheers)—as by open violence. He did not mean to say that
anything of this kind had actually taken place, but whether it
had or not no person could deny that means ought to be taken
to prevent anything of the kind in future. There were other
species of 'intimidation perhaps not less criminal, that which
men possessed of property, of office, or station in society might
exercise over those who were dependent on them. This he
regretted to say was upon some occasions had recourse to. He
meant to propose that a seat in that House should be as much
endangered by intimidation as by bribery. The Hon. Member
concluded by moving for the Committee.
Mr. HARDY should have brought forward the measure he
proposed last session if this Committee had not been moved
for, and he was glad the Hon. Baronet had taken the business
off his shoulders.

Sir E. CO DRINGTON cordially supported the motion of
his Hun. Friend.

Mr. O'CONNELL entirely concurred in the motion, and
he hoped that one part of it, namely, that which related to
intimidation, would not be left undefined.—( Hear.) Those
very men who were most guilty of intimidation were the very
first whenever Parties thought it their duty to propose amelio-
rations, and raise their voices in support of public opinion, to
calumniate all individuals who tcok the prior er mode to bring
the public mind to bear on individual cases. He trusted that
such men would be remembered by the Committee. For his
own part he thought the ballot was the only effectual remedy
for intimidation; it would prevent it effectually, and they
must in time be driven to it, since it would check all the evils
attendant on the present mode of voting at elections.
Sir J. CAMPBELL hoped that the Committee would
render the ballot unnecessary. He had seen at the late elec-
tions so much intimidation made use of, that unless some effec-
tual means were devised to check it, the ballot must ultimately
be resorted to. Though the ballot should become necessary,
he could not help considering it an evil.
Mr. R. STEWART (we believe) begged to add his sup-
port to the motion of the on. Baronet. He had seen much
of elections in Scotland, and he agreed with the Hon. and
Learned Member for Edinburgh that unless some other means
were devised to protect the electors from intimidation, they
must have recourse to the ballot. _ _

Mr. W. FORBE S was much obliged to the lion. Baro-
net for propo,ing a measure, by which intimidation and cor
ruption would be hereafter punished.
Mr. SHE IL begged to state to the House two remarkable
instances of intimidation that had come under his own obser-
vation in Ireland. The first was that of a man who voted for
him at the election for Tipperary in 1830. The man's name
was Bryan, and he told him (Mr. Sheil) that he could not
vote for him on account of the threats of his landlord. Then
he (Mr. Sheil) told the man not to vote for him at all ; but
the man did vote for him, and the consequence was, that he
was waylaid and thrown into a bog, and there left for dead.
The other instance was that of a person of the name of
M'Donnell, now starving in the streets of Dundalk. This
person came of his own accord, and said he should vote for
him (Mr. Shell). He understood that M'Donnell's landlord
was opposed to this, and he advised the man not to vote for
him. He neglected the advice, and the consequence was that
his landlord immediately ejected him, and he and his family
were now starving in the streets of Dundalk. Hon. Gentle-
men would be very ingenious if they could find out any other
means except the ballot to prevent such occurrences.
Mr. GROTE could not suffer so useful a motion to pass
unanimously, without expressing a few words of satisfaction
at it. It was well known that he entertained strong opinions
in favour of the ballot. He thought no acuteness could de-
vise any other remedy to prevent bribery, corruption, and in-
timidation at elections ; yet he would go into the present
Committee with the fullest disposition to yield his support to
any measure gentlemen might suggest, or any remedy they
might propose, provided they could prove that it would be
efficient. Having said this, he hoped that Hon. Gentlemen
who went into the Committee, and whose opinions were op-
posed to the adoption of the ballot, would in their turn, if they
should see that no other remedy could be employed but the
ballot, follow the example recommended by the Hon. and
Learned Member for Edinburgh, and that they would get over
their scruples and their objections to the ballot.—( Hear.)
Mr. O'DWYER wished to state a fact that had occurred
recently at his election. In more than one instance, more
than a silent intimation had been given by landlords to their
tenants as to how they were to vote. In one instance he had
seen the usual oaths administered to an elector, when the land-
lord caught up the book just as it had passed the lips of his
tenant, and said, " I swear by the contents of this book, that I
will turn you out at the earliest opportunity, unless you vote
as I wish you." That was but one out of a thousand similar
instances. There was another fact of which a Gallant Friend
near him was aware, and in which a Member of that House
whose name he would not mention was chiefly concerned.
That Member said to his tenants, " You will understand that
any tenant of mine who votes against my friend shall be in-
stantly turned off my land." To the credit of one voter, not
a tenant, but yet in some degree a dependent of that landlord,
he voted against the landlord's friend, and moreover told him
that his conduct was so unconstitutional and ungentlemanlike,
that he should never have a vote of his. _

An 110.;. MEMBER expressed his most earnest and sincere
hope that the Committee would enable electors to exercise
their franchise with perfect liberty.
Mr. S. RICE thought it would be a great advantage if the