The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-31 00:00:00

Majesty. By the Civil List Act a large proportion of the
expenditure had been removed from the Civil List, and
brought under the cognizance of Parliament—it having
previously had the effect of making his Majesty appear to
receive a larger amount of the country's resources than he
really did. In consequence of the representations of the
Salaries' committee, he came forward to make provision
for those charges which were formerly on the Civil List,
but were now lopped off. These were—the salaries of the
judges in England and Ireland, including the Lord Chan-
cellor of Ireland,—the diplomatic expenditure,—the pen-
sions that were on the Civil List, and were no longer
placed there,—the allowances for salaries in England anti
Scotland,—the salary of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland,
the s Clary of the Speaker of the House of Commons, and
the salary of the Speaker of the House of Lords. The Com
mittee had recommended that the whole salary of the Lord
Chancellor of England should amount to 11,000/. a-year.
The emolument of this officer as Speaker to the Lords,
amounting to a yearly income of 4,000/., he was to receive
as heretofore, and it was intended to place the 10,0001.
additional on the Suitors' Fund. It was proposed to in-
crease the Chancellor's retiring pension from 4,0001. per
annum to 5,0001., to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund.
On this point he would take occasion to state what had
been communicated to him by the Lord Chancellor, that it
was not his intention to accept any larger retiring pension
than former Chancellors, in case he quitted office before
Parliament had made arrangements respecting the places,
the disposal of which was attached to the office. The
next point to which he should call their attention was the
salary of the Speaker of that House. This bad been de-
rived from various sources, and it was now proposed to
charge the whole salary in one sum on the Consolidated
Fund, by which the accounts would be simplified. It was
proposed to charge the whole of the salaries of the English
and Irish Judges on the Consolidated Fund. In these no
alterations, save one, was contemplated. All persons
appointed to judicial offices previous to September, 1828,
were allowed 5,500/. a year. All subsequently appointed
had received their offices on condition of acceding, when
parliamentary regulation should reduce their salaries to
5,000/. a year. Four Judges, besides the Welsh Judges,
had been appointed on this understauffng, which would
be carried into effect. The salary of the Cursitor Baron,
whose office, after the existing interest had terminated,
was to he abolished, was at present paid partly out of the
Civil List and partly by fees. That part derived from the
Civil List was to he charged on the Consolidated Fund. The
next item, on which there existed some difference of opinion,
was the salary of the Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ire.
land. This salary, which was 500/. at the time of the
period of the union, had since been raised to 1,000/.—a
sum that, looking to the business and importance of the
Court, appeared to be too much. It was, therefore, in-
tended to reduce it to the original amount. The original
walary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was 30,00 Q/.
Irish currency, or 27,692/. English. During his Vicle-
royalty, the Duke of Northumberland had proposed
to relinquish the odd 7,692/., thereby reducing the
salary to 20,000/., at which it was intended to be
fixed. He now came to the consideration of a
question, on the discussion of which he had the misfor-
tune to differ from gentlemen who generally supported
him—he alluded to the pensions. He had heard all the
arguments on this subject in the House, and he had read
much that had been written upon it, and it was decidedly
his opinion, that if they took advantage of a technicality
as to pensions being granted during pleasure, which were,
in reality, given during life ;—he repeated, that if they
took advantage of such technicality, they would act in a
way than which nothing could be more unworthy of the
honour of this great country. This question appeared to
him so clearly in the light of a debt of honour, that, how-
ever it might have been advantageous for Lim to adopt a
different course, still he felt bound in honour, as a gentle-
man, not to take advantage of any technicality concerning
it while he remained a 'Minister of this country. He was
therefore determined to take the responsibility upon him-
self (however unpopular it might be) of submitting a
proposition, founded upon these opinions, to the House.
When this subject was referred to the Committee, the
pensions of England amounted to 73,6951. ; of Scot.
land, to 30,4671.; of Ireland, to 51,1551.: those on the
-05- per cent. fund amounted to 22,295/. Of the last,
some were for life, and over them his Majesty bad no
power; and others during pleasure, over which the
Crown had unequivocal control by 7 George IV. By
arrangements entered into at the passing of that Act,
no more pensions of this class were to be granted,
until the expenses of the bishops and clergy in the
West Indies were provided for, which had not yet been ac-
complished. The pensions on the 43 per cent., beyond
his Majesty's control, amounted to 11,468/., advanced to
persons during life, and one bad been granted by Charles
11. to Lord Kinnoul and his heirs for ever. Exclusive of

these pensions, there remained an aggregate for the three
kingdoms of 155,0001. and of this the whole sum at present
allowed on the Civil List was 75,0001. This was a great
sacrifice on the part of the Crown, and was increased by a
further sacrifice of 2,0001. a•year. Looking to the pen •
sions on the 44 per cent. fund that would expire with the
ordinary decay of life, and to other reductions, there would
be an ultimate saving to the public of 102,612/. The

present Government, he admitted, had no right to claim
all the credit for this, as the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site (Mr. Goulburn) had reduced the pensions to 145,7501.
He would next advert to the diplomatic expenditure. The
salaries of diplomatic agents on active service were at pre-
sent subject to deductions for taxes and duties which were
afterwards repaid. Instead of this operose mode of pay-
ment, it was proposed to give their net salaries to
diplomatic agents on active service, and to reduce the
pensions to the net receipts. The charge nn the
Civil List amounted to 196,9501., of which 144,9501.
was for active service, and 52,0001. for pensions. This
charge was not strictly adhered to ; and when the ex-
penditure did not reach the entire sum, the balance was
paid into the Consolidated Fund. There were, besides the
missions thus provided for, others of a minor description,
as to Greece, Albania, Columbia, and Buenas Ayres, that
were provided for by votes of the House. The total ex-
pense of these was 22,5001., which was to be added to
the sum of 144,9501. It was proposed to reduce this
aggregate expenditnre to 140,0001., by which a saving
would be effected of 27,4501. It had been recommended
that the pensions should be reduced to 40,000/. a year,
and that till the reduction was made, not more than
2,0001. should be granted in any one year. This recom-
mendation was calculated to place Government in a situa-
tion of very cons.d.rable difficulty. There were a cer-
tain number of ministers abroad who, from long service,
and from considerations of private fortune, had good claims
to a diplomatic pension. It was, therefore, necessary to
propose that theses hould be added to the pension list as it
stood at present, and afterwards to adhere as closely as
possible to the recommendation of the committee. The
pension list now amounted to 56,8101., but as there were
some very old lives upon it, it was probable that reductions
would arise in the ordinary course of nature. Far
the salaries and allowances formerly paid from tl,e
civil lis•.; of England, it was proposed to provide
during the continuance of the existing interests,
by which the questions would not be prejudged.
Some of these were grants during life, some were
permanent, and some during pleasure, The same dis-
tinctions prevailed in the Irish grants. There were other
charges of a different nature in the Civil List, originating
at the time of the diss'olution of the monasteries. These
were not to be retained on the Civil List, but were to he
placed on the land revenues of the Crown. The whole
arrangements would create a saving to the public of
252,0001. The Noble Lord concluded by moving
" That there be issued and paid to the Speaker of the
House of Commons, out of the Consolidated Fund of
Great Britain and Ireland, the sum of 6,000/., in lieu
of fees," &c.

Mr. GOULBURN said, that in accordance with the
recommendation of the Finance Committee, it was proper
that the salary of the Speaker should he paid entirely out
of the Consolidated Fund, instead of being partly defrayed
out of the Consolidated Fund, and partly from fees. He,
therefore, approved of that propo•ition. He was also fa-
vourable to the arrangement with respect to the Judges.
Those created previous to 1828 were to receive 5,5001. a
year, and those raised to the Bench since that period
were to have five thousand pounds a year. The
Noble Lord had not, however, stated what was in

tended to be done with reference to the Scotch
Judges. Their case had been brought before diffe-
rent Governments, and it was allowed on all hands
to be one of great hardship. He did think, that when
the Noble Lord brought forward a proposition for a c'rtain
reduction of the salary of the English Judges, he might
with great propriety have noticed the situation of the
Scotch Judges, who were insufficiently paid, and who,e
duties bad been lately increased. The next point was an
arrangement of the Lord Chancellor's salary; and he un-
derstood from the Noble Lord, that no part of that salary
was to be charged on the Consolidated Fund, but that the
retiring salary was to be defrayed out of that fund. Now
he could see no reason why, in that respect, the Lord
Chancellor of England should be placed in a different situ-
ation from that of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or of
the other Judges of the realm. To suffer that salary to
be paid out of the Suitors' Fund was contrary to the re-
commendation of the Finance Committee. He understood
also, the Chancellor's retiring pension was hereafter to be
.5,000/. instead of 4,0001. a y ear. He certainly was anxious
that officers holding high judicial situations should receive
an ample retiring allowance; but he did not like the prin.

ciple of increasing that allowance on the ground of the
insufficiency of the salary which they received while in
office. He should prefer giving additional salary to the
Chancellor rather than patronage or a small additional in-
crease of the retiring pension, because out of a handsome
additional increase of salary a Chancellor could better
make some sort of provision for those who came after him.
In his opinion, a retiring pension of 4,0001. a year, was
an adequate remuneration, and had never been complained
of as too little by those who had held the great seal. As
to the proposition respecting the salary of the Lord Lieu
tenant of Ireland, it met with his entire concurrence. lie
found that the diplomatic expenditure was to be reduced to
140,0001. a-year, and the pensions connected with that
branch to 50,0001. a-year. Now he could not see how it
was possible to keep those pensions within the limit of
46,0001. or 50,0001. a-year. The amount must be deter-
mined by circumstances. He entirely agreed with the
Noble Lord that it was not economy, but a want of eco-
nomy, ❑ot to reward high diplomatic characters liberally.
Therefore he would not confine the expenditure for pen-
sions to 50,000/. or to any other specific sum. He was
of opinion, however, that individuals might be found in
the receipt of pensions who were perfectly competent to
undertake diplomatic missions. With respect to the
general principles which the Noble Lord had laid down,
he approved of them, and no man would be found a
warmer supporter of those principles than himself.
Mr. C. FERGUSSON thought that the proposition
relative to the retiring allowance of the Lord Chancellor
was perfectly justifiable. The difference between his
situation and that of other Judges was obvious. Whe❑
the latter were raised to the Bench, it was true they gave
up their practice ; but they could not be deprived of their
situations, and they retained them until age or infirmity
obliged them to retire. This was not the case with the
Lord Chancellor. On every change of Adruini•tration he
was removed, and therefore it was proper that a liberal
provision should be made for him on his retirement.—
The case of the Scotch Judges unquestionably demanded
attention. In 1825, the then Administration agreed that
the salaries of those functionaries should be raised. That,
however, had not been done ; and certainly he thought
that they were entitled to a remuneration amounting at
least to one-half of what was paid to the English Judges.
The number of Judges had been reduced from 15 to 13,
the Consistorial and Admiralty Courts had been also-
lished,—additional labour had thus bee❑ thrown upon
those functionaries, but they received no additional remu-
neration. He hoped that even in the present Session the
Noble Lord would take an opportunity to do justice to
those most learned and estimable persons.
Sir E. SUGDEN said, that persons holding high judi-
cial situations should be placed in a state of perfect inde-
pendence. In his view of the question, the retiring pen-
sion of 5,0001. to the Chancellor was not too much. It
was undoubtedly a large sum, especially when they took
into account the current salary ; but when they recollected
that circumstances might render the tenure of the office
extremely brief, it was quite clear to him that 5,0001. a
year was not too much. Before the question of the Chan-
cellor's salary was decided on, he should like to see an
average of the amount of salary received by different Chan-
cellor's during the last fourteen or fifteen years, because
the salary must be regulated by that amount. I❑ making
these few observations, he did not mean to make allusion
to any particular Chancellor, he spoke solely and entirely
of the office.
Mr. SINCLAIR said a few words, the purport of which
we could not collect.
Mr. SPENCE said the present Lord Chancellor, im-
mediately on his coming into office, bad applied to indi-
viduals who perfectly understood all the details of business
in the Court cf Chancery, to give him their advice and
assistance with respect to the reform which he meditated.
Meetings took place in consequence, at which the question
of a proper and judicious reform was discussed. After
these discussions, the Lord Chancellor called to his aid
and assistance certain other gentlemen, and he caused to he
discussed, in his presence, all the proposals made for a re-
form in Chancery.—(Sir E. Sugden—Name.) Mr.
Duckworth and himself were applied to, and certainly no
man understood the practice of Chancery better than Mr.
Duckworth. The result was, that a plan of reform more
extensive titan that of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Sir
E. Sugden) was agreed upon. It was determined that
there should be three Bills, and he (Mr. S.) prepared one,
which was to be brought into the House immediately after
last Christmas. In preparing that measure, he found it next
to impossible to introduce a Bill which would interfere
with the master's office without touching the others. It
was, therefore, determined to draw up one Bill which
should embrace all the offices. After he had prepares!
that measure, the Lord Chancellor sugeested that a general
Bill should be introduced. Such a Bill was prepared, and
would very shortly be laid on the table of one of the
Houses of Parliament. That Bill was ready some time
ago, and the Lord Chancellor was very anxious to get it
through Parliament, but the business of his court, and his
labours in carrying the Reform Bill, had prevented him.
He here wished to correct an erroneous statement which
had got into almost every newspaper—namely, that he
(Mr. Spence) had declared that he was himself the sole

cause of this Bill not having been brought in. What he
said was this—that the delay between the 10th end the
26th of July was attributable to him. The fact was, that
when, on the 10th of July, he had an interview with the
Lord Chancellor, that Noble and Learned Lord expressed
a wish that a c'ause should be added for an " Appellate
Court," which alteration being made, he would immedi-
ately introduce the Bill. But from that time to the
present, he had not been able to draw up the clause. The
reason was, because if it were necessary that the Chief
Baron should form one of that Court, then it would also
become necessary to remodel the whole of the offices of the
Court of Exchequer. If a Bill should be presented to a
I eformed Parliament on this subject, he was quite sure that
it would be such a Bill as a reformed Parliament would be
disposed to accept.
Lord ALTHORP said, that the salaries of the Scotch
Judges, which had been referred to, constituted a subject
that was not comprised in the question now before the
Committee. He had bee❑ given to understand that the
general feeling in Scotland was, that the Judges were not
underpaid there. At the same time he was ready to ad-
mit that the question was one which deserved the fullest
consideration. He begged to say, that in fixing the amount
of salary which lie proposed should be given to the Lord
Chancellor, he had only followed the recommendation of
the Finance Committee on salaries, and he begged to add,
that he did not think that 5,0001. a year was too much as
a retiring allowance fur such an officer as the Lord Chan-
cellor. The Bill which would be brought in in conse-
quence of the resolution which he would have to propose
to the Committee on this subject, would be a bill solely for
regulating the salary of the Lord Chancellor, and would
not be a bill, as some seemed to suppose, tor effecting any
alteration or reform in the Court of Chancery.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY regretted that by the Bill which
the Noble Lord would introduce on this subject there
would he no reform effected in the Court of Chancery, af-
ter it had been so long promised. They had been often
told by Ministers, when on the opposition side of the
House, that the Court of Chancery was a curse to the
country, and that it only required a change of administra-
tion to convert it into a blessing. That change of admi-
nistration had at last come, and yet he would venture to
assert that the Court of Chancery never was in a worse
condition than at the present moment.—(Hear, hear. ) It
only required a firm mind and an honest intention to cure
such a state of things.—(Hear, hear.) If half-a-dozen
gentlemen acquainted with the practice of the Court were
appointed for the purpose, at salaries of 1,200/. a-year, be
was sure that in the course of one year they would devise
such a reform in Chancery as would render it that, of
which it was at present the very opposite, a court of
sound equity. The Lord Chancellor undoubtedly should
eet as large a salary as the Chief Justice of the King's
Bench ; hut, for his part, be thought that 10,0001. a-year
was too high a salary for any man in any situation in this
country. The present Lord Chancellor had himself ex-
pressed an opinion in favour of the separation of that of-
fice from fhe office of Speaker of the Ifouse of Lords.
He
(Mr. Harvey) therefore expected soon to see that effected ;
and as the Lord Chancellor's office would then become a
permanent one, he was of opinion that he should not get a
higher salary then than the Chief Justice of the King's
Bench.

The resolution was then put and agreed to.
On the resolution for enabling his Majesty to grant
20,0001. out of the Consolidated Fund for the payment of
the salary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland being read,
Mr. SINCLAIR thought the office of Lord Lieutenant
of Leland should be abolished, and that its duties should
be transferred to the Secretary for the Home Department,
as was the case in the instance of Scotland.
Lord ALT HORP certainly thought that the time might
come when it would he very desirable to place the Go-
vernment of Ireland precisely on the same footing as the
Government of Scotland; but at the present moment, when
the state of Ireland was involved in such difficulties, it
would be impossible for any inan of sane mind to propose
that the office should be abolished.

Mr. LEADER said, that the abolition of the office of
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, so far from being useful to
the country, would, on the contrary, as far as Ireland was
concerned,
to astill be
a nat
greateriobal
calamity,
as it would promote
absenteeism extent than it existed at pre-
sent. A great anxiety prevailed in Ireland at present for
a repeal of the Union, aid it was only necessary to pro—

pose such a measure as this to make the feeling in favour
of a repeal universal.
The resolution was then agreed to.
The following resolutions were then agreed to without
any discussion :-Ist, to enable his Majesty to charge the
Consolidated Fund with a sum not exceeding 235.5101.
to defray the salaries of his diplomatic servants at present
employed at foreign courts, and of such as may he here-
after employed there ; 2dly, to enable his Majesty to
charge the Consolidated Fund with the sum of 85,2221.,
to pay those pentions which, previous to his Majesty's ac-
cession, were chargeable on the Civil Lists of England and
Ireland, or the hereditary revenues of Scotland, and on the
per cent. duties, and for which no provision had been
made in the Civil List granted to his Majesty ; 3dly, to
enable his Majesty to charge the Consolidated Fund with
the sum of 20,309/., to pty those salaries and allowances
which, previous to his accession, had been chargeable on
the Civil Lists of England and Ireland, and the hereditary
revenues of Scotland ; 4thly, to enable his Majesty to grant
to grant to any person filling the office of Lord High
Chancellor of England a contingent annui,y of 5,0001. a
year to take effect on his resignation of, or removal from,
such office ; and, sthly, a reso'utioa to enable his Ma-
jesty to pay out of the Consolidated Fund the several sa-
laries of the Judges of the Courts of law in Westminster-
hall, and of the Courts of law in Dublin.
The House then resumed. Report to-morrow.
BRIBERY ELECTION BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for
going into Committee on this Bill. He expected the Re
form Bill would do much to abolish the practice of bribery,
by doing away with the wholesale bribery of rotten bo-
roughs. But he expected more from the strict investiga-
tion of these cases, than from the penalties, which were
notoriously disregarded. He proposed, by this Bill, to
extend the time for presenting petitions against a return
on this account, from fourteen days to two years. He
also wished to establish a better mode of carrying on the
investigation. It would be lawful fur any person to make
a complaint; and, if bribery and corruption were proved
to exist, the Committee should be empowered to grant the
complainants their costs. It might be said that this
would increase the number of complaints; but he thought
no man would incur the risk of 3 or 4,0001. costs, with-
out same foundation, He must repeat, he looked to the
mural feeling which the Reform Bill was calculated to
excite, as the best preventive of bribery, and as most
likely to elevate the character of the constituency, and
shed additional Jostle upon that House.—(Hear.)
Mr, R, WASON intimated his intention of moving a
clause iu Committee, to apply the fresh powers to be con-
ferred by the Bill, to the bribery which had occurred at
Liverpool, and to which he had repeatedly called the at-
tention of the House; but which calls were treated with
so much indifference, as would almost daunt any Member
from taking up such a subject. He thought the provision
in Lord Wynford's Bill, by which the party found guilty
of bribery and corruption was condemerl to pay the expenses,
was better than the provision in the Bill now before the
House. He should move the insertion of a clause of that
kind in this Bill.
Sir R. VYVYAN objected to the extension of the pe •
riod dialing which a petition might be presented against
the return of any Member.
Lord ALTHORP said that in his opinion the exten-
sion of the time of petitioning would have a tendency to
check the existence of corruption ; because a candidate
would be afraid to bribe, if he knew that for two years
afterwards his seat was liable to be contested on that ac-
count.
Mr. WILKS said that lie should propose a clause by
which every Member, on taking his seat, should swear
that he had not, either directly or indirectly, been guilty
of bribery or corruption.
Sir C. WETHERELL thought this late period of the
Session was a very unlit time to bring forward proposi-
tions for new bribery laws. Ile objected to the monstrous
extension of time during which a petition might be pre•
sented. The effect of this Bill would be, that if a Member
voted as his constituen-s thought tit for one year, but to-

wards the end of the sec3nd year offended them, he might
be harassed with a petition against his return. The in-
dependence of every Member would thus be sacrificed, and
he would be reduced to an absolute state of vassalage. Tt:e
words of the Bill were so vague, that they would embrace
every possible or fanciful act of bribery. No man could
ever know whether he was offending the laws or nut. In
the usury laws, a man was relieved from their operation
after the lapse of one year, and so it was with respect to
many most important fiscal laws. Why should not this
bribery law have the same limitation of time ? The Bill
might be made an instrument of vindictive oppression, and
he should, therefore, refuse his consent to the adoption of i
Lord J. RUSSELL was not prejudiced in favour of the
exact period of two years. What he wanted was, that
after the actual payment of the money given as a bribe,
sufficient time should be afforded to persons to make their
complaints of bribery. With respect to the proposition
to make Members take oaths that they had not recourse
to bribery, he was ❑ot favourable to it. He thought they
derived little advantage from oaths, whether taken by the
elector or the Member. The qualification oath, for in-
stance, afforded hut little security its the matter to which
it applied.
Mr. GOULBURN said that, in his opinion, the exten-
sion of time might be made use of for the worst political
purposes, and he much doubted whether the Bill would
not have a greater effect in encouraging conspiracies than
in discouraging bribery.

Sir H. 1-IABDINdE considered that the Bill was ob-

jectionable, as holding out a lure to suborners of evidence.
He should prefer coming to the table and taking an oath
that he had not been guilty of bribery, to being subjected
to the evils which this Bill would hang over the head of
every Member. The matter was worse on this account,
for the accusing party need not be a voter—he might be
an enemy of the sitting Member. Again, if the sitting
Member successfully defended his seat, he was not to have

the costs of his defence unless the complaint was pro-
nounced frivolous and vexatious, while the petitioner, if
he unseated the Member, was to have his costs. This was
not putting them on equal terms. He should oppose the
Bill.

Colonel SIBTHORPE complained that the Bill was so
loose and indefinite, that acts of hospitality and charity
might be interpreted into acts of I ribery.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY observed that the present Bill
imposed an oath on the electors, and why should not the
representative be subjected to the same restraint ? Why
should not the Member of Parliament, before he took his
sea*, be called upon to swear that he has not, and that he
will not, either directly or indirectly, by himself or his
agents, be guilty of bribery? As the House well knew,
there must be two parties to the crime of bribery, and
surely the restraint and the purificatio❑ from the crime
should not be confined to one of the parties. In fact, the
❑ecessity of taking such an oath at the table of that House
must be a great relief to the Members themselves. For
eaainp!e, when a candidate went down to a borough for
which he had bee❑ returned before, and to the electors of
which he had been accustomed to make many donations,
and when, in consequence of that practice, lie came to be
assailed by them with the usual importunities, how great
would the relief be to him to be able to say that, how-
ever willing to renew his former liberality, the oath which
he should have to take at the table of the House com-
pletely precluded a continuance of that ancient practice ?
The Hon. Gentleman then concluded by moving—That it
be an instruction to the Committee to insert an oath to be
taken by Members at the table of the House, previous to
taking their seats, to the effect, that they had not given or
promised, or intended to give, directly or indirectly, by
themselves or agents or friends, any benefit or pecuniary
fee or reward to any elector of the place for which such
Member was returned.

The SPEAKER suggested that the proposition of the
Hon. Member need not be in the form of an instruction ; it
might be moved in the Committee.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY observed, that if the House
were prepared to adopt the oath, it would supersede seve
ral of the clauses in the Bill.

The SPEAKER replied, that the uses of the Com-
mittee would be at an end, if such matters as come within
their jurisdiction were always to be moved as instructions.
Mr. W. BROUGHAM, though most anxious to assist
in perfecting any measure which bad for its object the pre-
vention of such a crime as bribery, yet feared that the pre-
sent Bill would lay Members open to repeated petitions
for two years after their return. It was universally felt
that to meet and defeat bribery at elections was almost
impossible, otherwise than by general enactments levelled
against the gross and direct offence. Thus, under the
section to which he was then referring, a charitable gift
of ss. to a poor voter might be construed into an act of
bribery. For his part, he thought it would he much more
desirable to take the oath at once than have such a penalty
as that contained in the Bill hanging over his head for two
years ; and yet even the oath was objectionable, for what
conscientious man could undertake for his agents or friends?
Mr. D. W. HARVEY was understood to acquiesce in
the suggestion of the Speaker.
Mr. H. GURNEY said, that all attempts to put down
bribery must be more or less unsuccessful. So long as
the situation of a Member of Parliament was desirable, so
long would the motives which influenc.d mankind be
brought into play.
Mr. C. PELHAM declared that he never before heard
so much said in favour of bribery.

Mr. WARBURTON said, it was not by punishments
after the offence was committed, but by means of preyei.-