The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-07 00:00:00

• Zed
11 law ; but. the difficulty was to discaver that 'le"
t ,bow it to tits •a"!isf ction of those who w bth
J,;(1, , and the juies of the .ere to e 3
fir.f
he , which he pre- t - lid
tnot 5.,
much .
seem, its ntrodhets t.
.).' bribery, direct
.any new or filet-eased pCnillties
a mora,ffiae' iraa'etend to eteleavoltr ttl 1)64 to light,
the briber:• aicious plan than had been hitherto prop •stati
Aet tvhich had taken place. He believed that the
tog' -oed in the last Session of Parliament Which did tint
rhoe it necessary to prove agency in the fret instance, al-
ba,ugh }etchrtatled of much of its ptopert•es in the other Hon's*,
tt did v!not reach the desired object which he expected his till
I,earaht• He would state what he proposed. under different
asith'• a
`The first part of the Bill which he proposed would be
stage iew of preventing compromises, and would refer to
saaaeos res of bribery at Election Commit. ees. He should
ae
e that parties who asserted bribery had taken
should be obliged to state the names of the
lair'tes alleged to
e bribed some 'ore
Connitnittee met. Hebe proposed likewise totime Insert inbe this
part
wst the Bill that there should be indemnity from penalties
road "ne's" is certain cases. When a full disclosure was
had
cot' acts of bribery, the Committee, in the mode which
h'_clg al agreed to with respect to past acts of bribery, should
haadr the power to report to the House that certain witneases
th a. full disclua.ure of those acts of bribery, and that
lithesses..) should be indemnified fom any penalties
tit ntrie- tan' might be otherwise liable. He also proposed, in
their. apart of the Bill, that Members, and candidates, and
elea; agents, might be examined b. fore the Committee. 'I he
part of the Bill was intended to preYent coiscealment. by
paY fraud comptumise of an dee ion petition. In the first
oT..rt of the Bill he secured, as far as possible, that the names be
tee lithe parties alleged to have been bribed. In this part
he proposed that the Committee, in certain cases, if
41.1! were satisfied that any compromise had been made,
patittibee Proceedings having come to a close, they believed that the
'hate was withdrawn in consequence of that compromise,
the reY 'hoold report to the House such their belief, arid that
louse Should give their authority to proceed in such way
illtßeiblhigehtruarti'l:wearoaidvisable. He also proposed that a solicitor or
for Theukt Lin bawled by the Speaker, or general Committee,
proceeding with the matter of complaint. If
Aletit4,pintl be complained that bribery was committed by the
Pow," rnhers the Election. Committee was to have the same
lei aNcelaring the election void, is if the parties complain •
tittatt4t iproceeded with the prosecution—the inquiry to be con-
ab.etß
Costa tntohe same manner as Election Committees now were
be levied on the sitting Members, if they or their
aZets were -proved guilty of the bribe, petition the other.cose to
ease4lecl on the petitioner.. In ease complaining of
patiaLlve bribery in a certain place, were presented, and that the
from'er was. deterred from proceeding with the prosecution
le!,r a fear of the cost, he proposed that such a petition
ataiitited in the same manner as any other election petition,
the tZe'Prosecution to be conducted by the solcitor named by
the hPeaker, and the proceedings might likewise terminate like
avatr,n3c eedings in the other cases, by a deaision that the seat
t4dat-fl By all those provisions he intended to prevent can
ileasaa7 'foto expecting that by means of a large distribution of
aet, to the amount of 4,0001. or 5,0001., either by them-
that' .1* their friends, they could obtain seats in that Houser
hose' check might be imposed upon those per. ons anxious for
tha.t,' of a seat in that House, so that they would not obtain
blo,e °Sleet
.by means of hi- berv, and would at the same time
rie corimderable sum of Money. The object of persons
asirtiel was very different ; they only sought for immediate re-
the ' and there were two modes of proceeding with regard tea
it„,i't who received bribes in boroughs. The first mode to re-
silitt.mY that evil was to disfranchise the le rough. and he owned
"salt seemed to him to be the preferable mode when the borough
Pa,i7".Y small, 'and only enjoyed its right to send Alembers to
sae-h'aotent by Prescription "But with regard to large towns,
Liverpool, he did not think that mode would
the "tue best. The other remedy was to. suspend
taidi Power of the boroughs to return Members. of
nt• "lent for One or two Parliaments, or for a certsin number
Ott str',' hot he confessed he did not think that was so much in
Whjar,tt of the Constitution. But then came the difficulty
4rroc had foreseen as much as any one, namely, that. of
tlair'slliag any cif those Bills into a law. There was first the in-
toad .uetore the Committee, and perhaps they had to make the
tortie inquiry again at the bar of the House, and after the. irn-
fra,n ttt,' Political business of the Session postponed this inquiry
tin „tittle to time, the Bill did not go up to the Hotise of Lords
yam„ a secend or third Session of Parliament; and when it
gatiti to the House of Lords, they were disposed to look strin-
the j 'Ton the subject, and demanded a great deal of evidence,
tke :"seatience of which was that the witnesses who established
oenevase in the first instance were not forthcoming, or the evi-
• the aßiven was not such as was given before in consequence of
• traaairlics beteg desirous that the borough should nct be dis-
t ed. Thus, after one or two years were spent, it re-.
tamedlY happened that when the Bill came before the House of
re-
tards the evidence was in their 6pinion not sufficient to stil?-
e 4 the disfranchisement of the borough, or at least not sufh-
ithat to please the legal Lords in that House. He had, in
attempted to remedy those evils by proposing a certain
alt;CorLtlottree who should inquire into the subject. That Bill was
~r'd in the House-of Lords,' after considerable deliberation,
a new shape was given to that Bill. He did not object to
th.: brinciple of the Bill as altered. The alteration was
thltet instead of 'a separate investigation into these matters by
aim Houses of Parliament, there should be a joint investt-
a,s""aand that the subject should be examined in such a mode
th_tolght be analogous to an examination by a Grand Jury,
Loricase coming before a tribunal composed of the Houses of
:alitand Commons. It had been proposed that the Commis-
Zcshould consist of seven Members of the House of Corn-
.eothou tas and five of the Lords, with a Judge to preside. Now,
"ght that there was a great objection to a Judge pre-
. siding in those matters. He thought that they so much con-
gs'errled Parliament and the rights of legis:ation that they ought
`'-` lee decided by Members of the Lords and Commons without
tte intervention of a Judge. He thought also that the
',Umber proposed equal to that of the jury was unnecessarily
large. He thought that if there were five Commoners and four
Peers, or four Peers and three Commoners, making a
. commission of seven or nine, it would be sufficient,
and it would be better, instead of a Judge, to have
talhe Presidency of a Peer appointed by the Crown.
%,I:l!eshael already said that all the Members should be appointed
attthe Crown. He should propose to give the Commissioner
• Mower of seeking the assistance of a Judge as was done by
ttimittees of the House of Lot ds in judicical inquiries, Per-
*. In't it would not have occurred to him calling fur the assist-
44'c'e of the Lairds in these cases, if the Lords themselves had
4 is taken up a similar proposition ; but as they had done so, and
a, e°tlsideration was brought to the subject, he thought it
,8
good a rule as could be proposed of carrying on these
these Palings. The next part of the subject was, how tar
tesults investigations should be carried. He proposed that the
t.f the inquiry should be laid before both Houses of
ta."111,-,•4'attit, who would legislate in the several cases according
`,"t t- Peculiar circumstances. It would be necessary that
~-nutte of Commons shculd in the first place address the
an 'ai-1,1:° appoint the Commission, and that either by
°use, ',e," to the Crown, or .by an order of the.
i'tte Commission should be assisted in its
-then-, by the Attorney-General. There were two
utie f thhatises in the Bill which he had to propose ,
'se had for its object the abolition of the bribery oath.
to,ad tor' hear.) He was convinced that the oath did not,
I;'l.ll°„Prevent bribery; whilst it too often happened, that to
."7: of bribery was superadded the awful crime of per-
'ttill 'dear, hear.) The other provision which he proposed
a,eror(tatice with a suggestion made in the course of this
Lleationritt iliscussiun. It was, that any promise or gift after the
taige should be held and deemed bribery.—( Hear, hear.)
y 1() Ras
aware that in the Bill which he would have the hanour
ta`ots h-P"se, there were some provisions not in conformity with
'l:l,hirtiar:tay t etifes of the Courts ofLaw. One of these was an in-
', tis Persons giving evidence before the. Commission.
!san Rht be objected to as prospective indemnity, and in so
the heat,-
. sagernent to offend ; besides,.it might be said that
plot, :;111d. in this case, give to Parliament that potter of
ti7ttla dwuleh was the prerogative of the Crown alone. He
1'"la the f • of -the first objection, that it
`• I,;beehti,;,,colt too" e persons likely to commit an of-
taNry r'.oapectire Commission ut he thought that it wasne-
'o give to the the same power of enabling
C•
oncerned in an offence to come forward ond give
O'lvate the sake of justice, without fear of personal cense-
, ,to themselves. as the Crown possessed even in re-
-1/4 aartles 1i he worst of crimes, such as murder, in which the
',',.ttts4,l%,,lah'i the power of giving' pardon and indemnity to any
• The °.,"as not the principal in the commission of the
s 'arow had that pwer. an wiae advice o legal
• t held outn the promise of such d,
pardonth ;t but no one' could
tnts was holdin s out a pro •pective pardon for the com-
'lld •of such cri It was also ribjected that the Bill
; to
;t he
the power of enforcing answers which would crinii-
i;sa . he Witness a thing not recognised in the Courts of
iht.4)4).ait was' satisfied that if they wished to prevent
iections, they
Law.adop measures going beyond
',"'ttae ;''ce of the Co rts of The Noble Lord then read
Oti ieraoth the Deport of Mr.. Banks' Committee, in the
to
101 core late Warren Hastings, from the reports of
Rations
le e. and other authorities, from which he argue.d
s:tians rnatturs of Parliamentary inquiry, the investi-
th4eiatile bnip,nat be limited only by keeping in view the im-
Ai Ntri.L'"eiPles of justice, and they must eot be restricted by
liastoidf confined practice of the Courts of Law. He
*.
deader . that the practice of bribery was
.confined to party,
party, but that individuals who had no regard
-that: /4(1"" not scruple to spend large sums to obtain seats'
•-tho'lhat-unse•—( Hear, hear.) It was not the Legislature!
;\,,1-,,lgh it.- could irk to put down the pi actice of
fore,bbery, el-
ttas td
duty to adopt. all measures that end
; at' boa,: re consistent vii h the principles of justice ; still it was
tia''„i'rt'eatih.at the increasing morality of the country would give
'fa lei lit'll,ts which would not allow these practices to of
t- ni.)°Olsl not detain the House further than by moving
th to bring in the Bill. .
culties '4,4* ctici e
slt e;• raLL gave his cordial support to the motion of
'lwlaeyre were at the present moment three
of discovering bribery at ele.ctions.—
'l4 a c • a ointed to inquire into the
'tut, an
.ommittee seat pp
, individual to a ,if the object was inconaider-
' " Petitioner in proportion to the sufficiency of h:s
teat the j,q:tbne to bear the expense, the petition was withdrawn,
Nter "frilbery sent unnoticed and unpunished. This was a
it
~died quest occurience, and he thought it ought to be
latiNht t ilie thought that when a Committee was appointed
• w,`; Have the duty imposed on it of stating that the in-
k rase, ijr"en off, and ought to be continued at the publ c
aoi• e„ Ile thoueht that the Noble Lord had provided
kt'uery 'or, this evil. A case might occur in which the
r the returned b r was known to the opposite
is:it ,em e ,
, or 717
,however might shrink from the extvrist of. a pet.in-
!hill, age"lTt the exposure of his own corrupt practises, . I
the I he agreed with the Noble Lord, it would be right
,sk2t h, i11",,..011.15et should institute an inqui without a petition ;
la 'rtireittu_et that there should be due caution as to granting
11 stoats ", under circumstances which might induce parties
th'iobar ho exatious annoyance, at the public expense, to a
14at porp,:,Ohestly and fairly returned. He. thought that for
vs recognizances should be requited of petitioners
ti„te os ca,sos before the public should 'incur the ex-
of the inquiry. With respect to the proposi-
coeeta=ry disfranchiaement, he thought it would be
111,11 a • n tsttosider that part of the Bill, for great difficulty
ars,n'e in obtaining the same evidence before the Houses
th9,4le as before the Commission. He agreed. with the,
lio 444,41 that' it would be better to leave the appointment or
iiiPes of ~at°.the Crown, instead of the majorities of the two
the ler thament. He was perfectly ready to support the
f
tiatOorana:,' 1? give it a retrospective effect, as in the case 0
la 7", to h'sa,• °I Newcastle. lie thought it would be perfectly
as, tea
.0 clause in this Bill, although it should not pass
lii:lv,,houll.tohths to come, subjecting to the penalty any one
t te be,„ ',aye been proved before the present Committees to
4,..ritatin, guilty of bribery at the last election. With respect
a:caltie;" he thought legislation was attended with many
itttiaelle • It was impcssible to say when corrupt treating
ltiatat,eds or what were to be the limits of
ry wa. to a man's friends or adherents.
L.SW as
point with respect to which the law was 4' a
eleill4 ".1 ißfaet 0 •
• ~• iy state, that was the payment• of conveyance
Nctr, t:Sfeheved that it was perfectiy allowable to
hery
talc pa.sietihiettpoll and back again. Fur his own part, had
tided lilac, lilac, Ir.oltgli a place where a contested election WAS
for
without seeine a great number of carriages pro-
's:L:4les
of '4? electors. 'He knew that it was the constant
iliSt Sayd
.cleetors not to exercise their privilege unless they
Gee 5aa,,,,t00 trouble of walking to the poll. He was afraid
siVe anti violent interference with that practice would
e!'sra iiine exercise, on the part of the electors, of their Iran-
hu speeietholaght the Nob:e Lord was right in proposing that
1441;ter.a.isantf direct payment, either for oinners or otherwise,
.a. Was C.onsidered as bribery but, after they had done that,
hey. would leave the law with respect to treating
intPerfeet state. He beliew.4 that the kyle& persons