The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY MORNING, JULY 28, 1842.

-Member for Sussex, he would find that they were pro-
vided for by the 26th and 27th Cliaises. If this clause
were tigted to, he thought that some words ought to be
introduced, providing that no alteration should be made
in the present rules of evidence.
After a few words from Mr. DARBY, which, were .
inaudible, - •
Mr. HARDY wished to know if they intended to make
compromise a crime, because if they did not, and he did
not see how they could, they were wasting time by in-
quiring into the compromise when they ought to inquire
into the acts of bribery.
Mr. O'CONNELL was apprehensive that the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman who had the care of that Bill,
endeavouring to oblige certain parties by omitting cer-
tain parts of the Bill, would make it, as he stated, a
simple Bill indeed, and inoperative. He thought he did
wrong in merely inquiring into the compromises and
net inquiring into the great question of bribery.
An HoN. MEMBER here moved that the House be
counted.
The House was counted, but there being more than
forty Members present the Committee resumed.
Some verbal amendments were proposed in the clause,
which were agreed to.
Mr. DARBY proposed an alteration in the clause, the
purport of which would be to confine the inquiry to the
fact of a compromise having taken place.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that would racier the inquiry
perfectly inoperative. It would be better to give up the
Bill at once.
Mr. ESCOTT would not support any inquiry which
should be imperative. He wished to know why they
were to alter the rules of evidence, in order to make out
this new offence. Everything done ought to be done in
a judicial manner.
Mr. DARBY withdrew his amendment.
Mr. C. BULLER, moved some verbal amendments in
the clause, which were agreed to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the insertion
of words to the effect that these witnesses should be
examined, subject to the ordinary rules of evidence. If
the House sanctioned the 26th clause, which he did not
anticipate, the House would then, of course, strike these
words out of the clause. _

Mr. AGLIONBY objected to this amendment of the
Attorney-General. He (Mr. Aglionby) would certainly
take the opinion of the Hoti-e as to the examination of
professional agents. He would certainly do his utmost
to prevent persons taking advantage of these communi-
cations being professional and confidential to avoid dis-
closing them to the Committee. He hoped that, in cases
of compromise, Committees would enter into an inquiry
as to acts of bribery having been committed. Unless an
inquiry was instituted into acts of bribery, it would be
childish to inquire into the compromise:
Mr. O'CON NELL said the amendment would destroy
entirely the effect of the remaining words of the clause.
Gentlemen seemed to hate some sort of enthusiasm in
favour of the maxim of preventing a man from crinti-
tatting himself. The rule was a bad one ;it tended to
prevent the eiscovery of truth, and was frequently made
use of as a mere excuse. But if the party were indem-
nified, the maxim became of no effect ; and by getting
rid of the power of indictment, they got rid of the rule,
and ought to get rid of its effects. In reply to the Hon.
Baronet he would say, that he considered intimidation a
crime equal to bribery, and he (Mr. O'Connell) would gsr
to any extent with the Hon. Baronet in preventing inti-
midation. He knew of one way of preventing it, and
that was by granting the Ballot. He moved that the
words—‘..subject to the ordinary rules of evidence" be
omitted from the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in the Court
of Chancery it was constantly the practice to order an
issue to be tried, and the Lord Chancellor would order
the parties in that suit to be examined subject to the
laws of evidence. He could not consent to permit the
words to be struck out.
Mr. ESCOTT said that the Hon. Member for
Cockermouth stated fairly enough that he wished to dO
away with the rules of evidence in these cases, whereas
the Attorney-General wished to examine these witnesses
according to the rules of evidence, when, according to
the rules of evideme, they ought never to be examined
at all.
The amendment proposed by the Attorney-General
was then put and agreed to.
Other verbal amendments were agreed to.
On the question that the clause as amended stand part
of the Bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that from the conciliatory
spirit evinced by the Hon. Gentleman who had charge
of the Bill in admitting the amendments proposed, his
(Mr. A's.) interest in the Bill was considerably lessened.
He would recommend to the Noble Lord who had intro-
duced the Bill t'.m cut the Gordian knot at once, and next
session bring in a Bill for the Extension of the Franchise
and Vote by Ballot.
Mr. C. BULLER denied that he had admitted any
alterations in the Bill but one, of which those who pro-
posed it pointed out the necessity. On the 26th clause
he should bo as firm as a rock.
Sir R. INGLIS said that three hours had now been
consumed in what was virtually but the first clause of
the Bill. He put it to the lieuse if there was a reason-
able prospect of bringing the subject to a termination
this session, and if there was not they should not thus
waste the public time.
Sir R. PEEL observed in reference to what had been
said relative to compromise, as .being a crime, that the
fact of compromises acting as impediments in the pro-
secution of inquiry into alleged bribery, formed sufficient
ground for the introduction of that subject in the Bill.
With respect to the value of public time, no one could
be more sensible of it than he ; but it was not lost in
discussing a measure, which would have the most benefi-
ciaLresults in the cases of elections occurring during the
recess. Ile knew of no better tribunal than that sug-
gested by the present Bill, for the purpose of defeat-
ing compromises.
Mr. DARBY said that, after this session, there would
be very little in the way of compromise resorted to. He
believed that this Bill would do more to prevent bribery
than any other measure which had been enacted on
the subject.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
The third clause was agreed to, with some amendments
proposed by the Solicitor-General.
Clause 4 was agreed to without discussion.
On clause 5 being put; •
Mr. DARBY opposed it. He objected to the power it
gave to any political partisan to present a petition imme-'
diately after the heat of a contested election, almost un-
checked, which petitions were to be prosecuted at the
public expense.
Mr. I3ULLER could not admit the objection. All
election petitions were liable to the same charge, and it
was met by compelling the parties to enter into recogni-
zances, and saddling them with the expenses if they
turned out frivolous.
After some observations from Mr. Darby, Mr. Hardy,
and Mr. Henley,
Mr. ESCOTT thought if the clause passed there
would be no end to the presentation of petitions from
malicious motives and party spite.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared
For the clause
Against it
Majority in favour of the clause
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 6 was agreed to without any amendment.
On clause 7, with respect to the amount of recog-
nizances, being put,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that the
recognizances in certain cases should be increased from
100/. t 0.2501., and in others front 2001. to 5001.
Sir R. PEEL thought the suggestion worthy of con-
sideration, and one that ought to be adopted.
The clause, as proposed to be amended, was then
agreed to.
Clauses up to 13 were agreed to without any amend-
nents.

. 62

Clause 14 having been put,
Mr. O'CONNELL objected to the proposal in the
clause of constituting a Commission of Inquiry com-
posed of Members of both Houses, in the case of a
borough suspected of bribery. He should divide the
House against the clause.
Mr. HAWES thought that if the House consented
to the appointment of a Corpmission composed of
Members of both Houses, they would be yielding up
their own privileges.
Mr. ESCOTT also objected to the clause. •
Mr. AGLIONBY stated that she object of appointing
a mixed Commission was, to facilitate the adoption of
any measures which it might be thought advisable to
take against a delinquent borough. .No Bill for disfran-
chising a constituency could be passed without the
sanction of the other House ; and it was felt that that
sanction could he more easily obtained, if Peers were al- •
lowed to be members of the Commission. He thought
that that consideration was sufficient to justify the pro-
posal in question.
Mr. MACKINNON opposed the clause. He thought
that the pow ers of both Houses should be kept distinct.
Mr. ROEBUCK hoped the clause would not be
pressed. lie should feel great repugnance in voting for
a proposal that that House should devolve any of its
powers to the other House. He entreated the House not
to decide hastily on such a subject. Let them suspend
their judgment for the present ; and let Ministers prepare
a well-considered measure to settle the whole question
in the next session. He believed that those tribunals
to which the House now left the decision of election peti-
tions were inefficient ; and he did not think that that
inefficiency would be remedied by the calling. in of a
number of Members of the other House. The Members
of the other House were as liable to be biassed by party
bc cons
tihd
ae
tr atthi oe
yn s
s,
haosu tl ed
cy were o
mmit tthheempsoellvveers . 0
fHi
decidingsish s would
elec-
tion petitions to one or two high judicial functionaries.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that he coincided in every
ord that had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath. In his opinion it would- be advisable to
transfer to an external authority that power which they
bad hitherto reserved to themselves with respect to elec-
tion petitions. If the Hon. Gentleman proceeded with
the clause he should propose as an amendment that the
Commission should consist of three Judges of the supe-
rior courts of law.
Sir R. PEEL felt an objection in principle to such a
course. It could not be skid that he was not anxious to
maintain the privileges of the House of Commons—
(Hear)—but the disfranchisement of a borough was not
a matter relating to the special privileges of the House
of Commons, but was a subject fur legislative interfer-
ence ; and they could not proceed a single step without
the concurrence of the House of Lords. They had a
right to determine the issuing of the writ, but they could
not disfranchise a borough without the concurrence of
the other Holise of Parliament, and therefore when they
called in the aid of the House of Lords in the composi-
tion of the Commission, it seemed to him they were sur-
rendering no rights. The object of the Commission
was that they should have power to discover such facts
as would enable both Houses to disfranchise guilt
boroughs without any further inquiry. He- was in favour
of the appointment of a Commission by: the Crown, but
he thought it would be better to take the ;)ell e, tic

}louse upon the appointment of a Commission at'all in
the' first instance.
Mr. BERNAL suggested to his Hon. Friend (Mr.
C. Buller) not to proceed at that late period with a
clause of such importance. He did not see the use of
the proposed Commission. It was quite new, and he did
not vee what benefit would be procured by it. He hoped
the Right lion. Baronet would be prepared next session
with a large and general measure on the subject.
Mr. T: DUNCO MBE said his lion. Friend was press-
ing this Bill under great disadvantages. The . Bight
Hon. Baronet seemed so well to understand the bearings
of this Bill, that he recommended his Hon. Friend to
hand it over •to him.—(Laughter.) Under the present
system, a double inquiry was necessary. He therefore
hoped his lion. Friend would not hastily abandon the

cla use.
Mr. ROEBUCK did not object to the appointment of
a Commission. The object was to get at the truth in the
best way possible. -He thought that object would be best
attained by a judicial tribunal. He hoped his Hon.
Friend would postpone the clause.
Mr. ESCOI7 said his great objection to the Commis-
sion was, that when it obtained the evidence they could
not proceed judicially upon it. -
After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. HOWARD,
Mr. C. BULLER said that he thought he ought to
take the sense of the House upon the clause. If he
Succeeded in carrying it by only a small majority, he
thought it would be useless to proceed with the Bill.
Sir R. PEEL suggested that all the clauses of the
Pill frOm the 13th should be withdrawn, and that an-
other Bill to satisfy the purposes of the remaining
clauses might be introduced next session.
Mr. C. BULLER withdrew the 'clauses, and on the
question that clause 26 should' stand part of the Bill, he
said that 'he thought it of the highest importance to
the efficacy of the Bill, and he was disposed to leave it
to the House, on a division, to adopt or: reject it.
The ATTORNEY-.G ENEBAL objected to the clause
breaking in upon one of the most important principles
of English law, by making it compulsory upon witnesses
to criminate themselves. Why should there be a diffe-
rent rule in this case from that which existed in the case
of treason, misdemeanour, and other crimes ?—(Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him that the clause would intro-
duce a new law entirely contrary to the present rules of
evidence.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the great question
was whether they would be at liberty td
'discourage the crime in question, by compelling the party
to criminate himself. AVas it likely that bribery could
be discouraged if every person concerned in it might
protect himself ? Was not that a bipus to commit
bribery ? Was it not a shield thrown over the briber ?
It seemed to him perfectly plain, that
.the way to check
crime was to allow disclosure, and the way to encourage
it was to prevent disclosure. He thought that, if they
passed this clauSe, they would make the Bill efficient,
and if not, the Bill would be worthless.

Mr. PARKER supported the clause.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, that if a clause of indemnity
were passed, the person would be prevented by the in-
demnity from criminating himself.
Lord PALMERSTON thought that to allow .a party
to give evidence criminating himself was not entirely in-
consistent with the ordinary course of the law. They
often had recourse to the evidence of an accomplice, who
was equally criminal with the man against whom his
evidence was brought. He did not-think the objections
of the Attorney-General entitled to any weight.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said they all admitted
that bribery was a great crime, but it was not a greater
crime than many others. What was done by the clause ? It
compelled a person to answer a question tendingtocriminate
himself, while at the same time a clause was introduced
affording prospective indemnity. Reference had been
made to the case of an accomplice who was admitted
as Queen's evidence, but the Crown had no power
to grant a pardon for future offences. In effect
this indemnity clause said, " You may go down to
a county or borough and bribe to any extent you please,
and if you are afterwards examined before a Committee
it shall no longer be a crime."—(Hear, hear.) He be-
lieved that a great deal had already been done by the
measure passed last session towards suppressing bribery.
It was now seen that it was impossible to commit
bribery without investigation. In every case this session
in which a petition had been presented containing
charges of bribery, the party petitioned against had been
unseated.—(llear, bear.) He thought that circumstance
would have a great tendency to check bribery.
Mr. AGLIONBY supported the clause, on the ground
that without it the Bill would be wholly inefficient.
Mr. HARDY said it was impossible t o detect bribery
without examining the parties themselves ; it could only
be discovered by bringing the payer and receiver before
the tribunal appointed to investigate it.
Mr. SHEIL thought that all the objections of the So-
licitor.-General might be removed by the introduction of
a few words, to the effect that the answers given by the,
witness should not subject him to any further proceed-
ings. He could not help thinking that if the clause
were emitted, a clause introduced in the former Bill, but
rejected in another place, the present Bill would be de-
prived of its greatest benefit.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared.
For the clause 39
Against it BO
Majority against the clause —4l

The clause was consequently lost.
On clause 27 being put,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL stated that he appre-

clause had been decided by the division on
the last clause, as it involved the same principle, and
must, therefore, be attended with the same results.
Sir IZ. PEEL doubted greatly the policy of compelling
a party to criminate himself. He thought that any
enactment to such an effect would only hold out a
temptation to perjury. The subject had been ably dis-
cussed in an article in a late number of the Edinburgh
Review, on the trial of Madame Lafarge. It appeared that
the practice in France was, under certain circumstances, to
examine the party accused ; but the writer of the article
to which he had referred showed that that practice often
only led to a suppression of the truth.
Mr. C. BULLER said, that considering the opposition
to the principle of the 27th and 28th clauses, he should
piiipose their withdrawal.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD would not consent to the with-
drawal of these clauses. He believed that that would
entirely upset the utility of the Bill.
The Committee then divided, when the numbers were,
For the clause 2B
Against it
Majority against the clause
The clause was therefore struck out.
The Committee having resumed, clauses up to 31 were
struck' out.
After a short discussion, clause 32 was agreed to, as
were also clauses up to 42.
After some discussion clause 43 was agreed to.
The Bill then passed through Committee and the Report
was received, and ordered to be reconsidered on Friday.
CORONERS, &c., (LANCASTER AN]) WARWICK)
BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned
debate, on the second reading of the Coroners, &c., (Lan-
caster) Bill being read,
A short discussion took place, after which
Dr. BOWRINU moved the adjournment of the

debate.
Mr. BROTIIERTON seconded the motion.
The House divided, when there Appeared,
For the adjournment of the debate ..• 19
Against it 5l
Majority against the adjournment
The Bill was then read a second time,
—32
and ordered to
be committed on Wednesday next.
The Parish Constables Bill was read a third time,
and passed.
The East India Bishops Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Friday.
The Tobacco Regulations Bill went through Committee.
The Slave Trade Suppression Act went through Com-
mittee, a resolution having been agreed to that the
Commissioners be empowered to divide a portion of the
proceeds from the sale of slave ships atnongst the captors.
The other Orders of ihe Day were then disposed of, and
the adjourned at Half-past Two &Clock.

THE BISHOP OF EXETER.
(FROM A coanxsposiDENT.)
It is not generally known that when a Bishop or-
dains a Deacon or a Priest, this ceremony does not of
itself confer on the party a right to preach the Gospel
of Christ ; the rite of ordination only empowers the
individual to read the prayers and the homilies, and
perform the sacraments ; to preach he must have a
separate, a distinct license. The Universities have
the power to grant this license, so have the Archbi-
shops within their provinces, and also each Bishop
within his diocese. A license granted by one Bishop
gives no power to an ordained Priest to preach within
the diocese of another Bishop; and a Rector or Vicar
cannot of himself allow a stranger to preach in his
to demand his
" Neither the
ipiuelepnisteiftothpereCaehhu.r—Vdredesnotihnteearfesneorn.
Minister, Churchwardens, nor any other officers of
the
Church
their churches
their license to preach, shall appear unto them to be
urcrh sehsal o l r
chapels, suffer any man
but such as, by showing
to preach within
sufficiently authorised thereunto,as is aforesaid."
. these
52
to their church from any other place be noted in a
book which they shall have ready for that purpose;
thatd canon o n
names orders
of
ft
all hat
preachers"th
shall`"the
which come
Churchwardens
wherein any preacher shall subscribe his name, the
day when he preached, and the name of the Bishop of
w hom he had license to preach." These observations
are necessary to explain the conduct of the Bishop of
Exeter, who has just issued his prohibition on the
fovegoing grounds.
The Rev. Vicar of Clovelly, in the north of Devon,
feeling disposed to take a trip from home this summer,
selected the Rev. James Pears, of Bath, to take his
duty for a period of two or three months ; the Vicar
gave up his parsonage-house to this gentleman for the
term ; and, on Sunday the 17th inst., he commenced
his duties, but, during the week, the Bishop of Exeter
caused a prohibition to be served upon him and the
Vicar, so that the Vicar was obliged to return on Sun-
day last to perform the duty himself.
Complaint is not made against the Bishop or any
other person for carrying out the law to its full effect,
but that it should be done partially ; for how seldom
does a Bishop or a Minister interfere to prevent a
person preachm,, who has a license to preach from
some lawful authority.
In this case, Mr. Pears happens to be a gentleman
of independent property, of I,,tberal political opinions,
::P.:l is opposed to the general principles of priesteraft,
• Pusevism
.

gsfo
The Duke and Duc Sutherland are expected
iu ttte nt,rtil in a few days, to reside in their ancient seat
of Duuro)44 Caste.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURTOF CHANCERY. July 27.

Neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce sat in their Courts to-day ; the former in
consequotice of his continued indisposition, and the
latter on account of having to attend the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council. .