The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-07 00:00:00

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.

On the motion of Lord J. RussELL, the House re-
solved itself into Committee on the Bribery at Elections
Bill.

The several clauses 1 to 11 inclusive, having been
agreed to, clause 12 was put to stand part of the Bill, when
Mr. 11UAIE suggested an addition, to the effect, that in
all boroughs, towns, or cities, where bribery was proved
against certain individuals, they should be suspended from
the exercise of the elective franchise, without affecting the
rights of other electors.

Lord J. RUSSELL said, that there was a clause in the

Bill, pri:viding that the Committee to whom any petition
complaining of an undue return might be referred, should
report the names of the persona guilty of bribery ; and he
had no objectio❑ to the suggestion of the Hon. Member
for Middlesex.
An Hom. Altntinn said that such a remedy would re-
quire a new Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORPE complained of the provisions of

this Bill, which bad emanated from the Noble Lord oppo-
sit, , and which prevented the pertbrmance of the common
acts of life by Hon. Members. He did hope that the
Noble Lord did not intend to force this Bill through Par-
liament in this the eleventh hour of the Session. lle had
asked a civil question of the Government, but, as on all
occasions of an inquiry, he could not get an answer. He
had inquired whether this Bill would be brought forward,
he could get no reply, and though he had been absent only
three minutes from the House, cn his return he found the
Bill proceeded in.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say, that
the occasion to which the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman
had referred was on the evening of Friday last, when the
Bill had been committed pro forma, when at twelve or one
o'clock in the morning, in answer to the inquiry of the
Gallant Member, he had replied, that he should bring
forward the measure on this evening, and as early as cir-
cumstances would admit. Having said so much, it did
not appear to him that the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman
had brought forward any argument against the Bill now
before the /tense.
In answer to a question from Mr. H. GURNEY, which
was perfectly inaudible,
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that the whole of the legisla-
tive enactments with reference to bribery ought necessa-
rily to be consolidated, but the present period of the session
was too late to accomplish such an object. The present
Bill was directed exclusively to prevent bribery in corrupt
places returning Members to serve in Parliament.
After a short desultory conversation, in which Mr.
Dixon, Colonel Sibthorpe, Mr. Courtenay, Lord Althorp,
and Mr. Hume took part, the clause, as hell as the clauses
up to 19 inclusive, was then agreed to.
On the question being put, that clause 20 stand part of
the Bill,
Mr. FANE addressed a few words to the House, which
were pet fectly inaudible to us. In answer,
Lard JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say, that
lie ad teitted this Bill to be a great constitutional question,
at tho same time be thought that where it was proven
the majority of a place entitled to representatives were
proved to be corrupt, the minority of the electors of that
place must suffer in the disfranchisement.
Mr. DIXON begged to put a case—for instance, the
city of Gasgow, where a certain party, say, 7,000 out
of 10.000 might be corrupt, would that be a ground for
disfranchising the whole ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied, that such had not
been the case hitherto. The case of Liverpool was one in
point, and in that case, though bribery had been clearly
proved to exist, yet nobody had ever thought of proposing
that the town of Liverpool should for ever be deprived of
sending representatives to Parliament.
The remaining clauses up to the 26th having been
agreed to,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE brought under the consideration
of the Committee the subject of the interference of Peers
at elections, an evil of which he was desirous to prevent
the recurrence. The Hon. Member quoted several in-
stances of the improper interference of Peers, in despite of
the resolutions of the House censuring such proceedings.
The Marquis of Salisbury had obliged his tenants to enter
into bonds to quit their holdings on 14 days' notice, or
forfeit penalties of 50/. This was done both in the case
of county and borough votere, though the time allowed to
the former was, he believed, more than 14 days. What
was the object of the Noble Marquis? He answered—
to control the votes of his tenants at the next election
for Hertford. He contended that such attempts to impede
freedom of election were not to be endured. In order to
put an end to such improper practices, he proposed to
bring up three clauses—the first of which would inflict a
penalty of 500/. on any Peer who should be proved to have
interfered at elections ; the second clause pointed out the
tribunal by which the penalty cues to be inflicted—namely,
a Committee of the House chosen by ballot ; and the
third clause fixed the mode of recovering the penalty.
The Hon. Member concluded by moving that these clauses
be brought up.
Mr. BERNAL (the Chairman) called the attention of
the Committee to the fact, that the clauses aga.inst the
interference of Peers did not come within the scope of the
title of the Bill, which was to prevent " bribery and cor-
ruption" at elections.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed with the Chairman,
that the clauses were inadmissible in point of form, but
nevertheless thought the present not an improper time to
discuss the principle involved in the resolutions. In his
opinion, the resolutions of the House against the interfe-
rence of Peers at elections, only applied to cases of gross
and open interference. lie did not think that it could
be the object of a Reformed Parliament to shut out all in-
terference whatever on the part of the Peers. There was
a wide difference between the legitimate and illegitimate
influence of rank and property; the former be hoped
never to see abolished. Ile objected to the proposed clauses
as inconsistent with the ordinary course of justice (this
referred to the mode of imposing the penalty), and cal-
culated to produce collisions between the two Houses of
Mr. CURItIE wi-hed to know from the Noble Pay-

master of the Forces whether it was legal or constitutional
that a Peer should interfere in elections. To his own
knowledge, the Marquis of Salisbury had indirectly by
bribes—(Noes, and hear)—and directly by threats, most
illegally and unconstitutionally endeavoured to influence
the elector, of the borough (Hertford) which he (Mr.
Currie) represented.—(Hear,)
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think it necoessary to de-
precate such conduct in either Peer or Commoner as
highly illegal and unconstitutional.—(Hear.) He, how-
ever, saw no reason why a Peer bhotal not vete at

elections.
After a vtry desultory discussion on the question, whe-
ther the Hon. Member for Hertford (Duncombe's) clause
was or was not informal, the gallery was cleared for
a division, but we understand that no division took place,
and that the Chairman reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again on Wednesday.