The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-27 00:00:00

THE CHARTIST LECTURERS.

Mr. T. DUNCOMI3E gave notice that to-morrow
he should move for a humble Address to her Majesty,
praying her to take into consideration the case of John
Mason, and the six other individual confined in Stam-
ford gaol, with a view to their immediate discharge.
He did also move for the names of all persons who
had been appointed to offices under the Board of
Stamps and Taxes since the Ist of September last.
(BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice that to-morrow he
should Move three resolutions to the following effect :
First, that. if the persons proved to have been guilty
of the practices investigated by the Committee of In-
quiry into election proeeedings should escape without
punishmentl'it would tend to bring this House into
contempt ; secondly, that the said practices were a
violation of the liberties of the people, and of the
rules of the House; thirdly, that it appeared from '
what had taken place with regard to the
elections at Nottingham, Reading, Ipswich, Harwich,
Lewes, Penryn, and Falmouth, that the present laws
were insufficient to protect the voter, and that there-
fore Mr. Speaker be instructed that no writ do issue
to• fill up any vacancy in the representation of those
boroughs till further legislative measures had been
taken on the subject.

LAW COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. LITTON gave notice of his intention to move
certain amendments on going into Committee on this
Bill.

SHEIL gave notice that he should move a
clause to be inserted in the Bill.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.

Mr. C. BULLER moved that the Order of the
Day for going into Committee on the Bribery at
Elections (No. 2) Bill be read, on which

Mr. MACKISINON rose to move that the Bill be
re-committed that day six months. The Bill con-
taihed two principles which he conceived ought not
to be admitted, which principles it had not been in his
power to contest before the Committee ; he, there-
fore, thought it right to state his objections to those
principles before the Speaker left the Chair.
He (Mr. M'Kinnon) owed his seat in that House to
the local and personal influence he possessed in his
neighbourhood, and the only danger he could incur
with respect to losing his seat, would be by some
stranger coming forward and bribing the constituency,
and thereby depriving him of that influence which
returned him to that House. He said, for the pur-
pose of satisfying the House, that he had no interest
of a personal nature in the remarks he was about to
make. The principles of the Bill which he con-
tended against, were those which militated, first
against the common statute law of the land,
and next, against the privileges of the House.
He objected particularly to the" 15th clause, which
gave a right to the Committee to examine Members
of Parliament, or other persons, on their oaths, as to
their own criminality. The principle of that clause
was contrary to the spirit of the statute law. Was it
in accordance with the importance of the subject to
alter the statute law by a side wind—by a clause in
a Bill to prevent bribery at elections instead of a
measure being boldly brought forward, having for its
professed object the altering of the statute law ?
The next principle which he militated against, was
that which provided that a Commission should be ap-
pointed, consisting of three Peers and four Members
orParliament, to inquire into certain cases of bribery.
He wished seriously to call the attention of the House
to the importance of that clause. This clause was of
vast importance, as it altered the customs of Parlia-
ment. The appointment of that Commission was
vested in the Crown, and that was placing it in the
Minister of the day. He did not say his Right
Honourable Friend would do so, as they all knew
his fairness ; but supposing they had a Minister
who was determined by any violence to prevent his
opponents sitting in that House. Supposing such a
Minister found the Hon. Member for INlontrose and
the Hon. Member for Finsbury an annoyance—
(Laughter)—and supposing he wished to abate the
nuisance--(Laughter)—he would get up a little
bit of bribery in the borough of Montrose or the
borough of Finsbury, and a petition would be pre-
sented to the House of Commons, and the House
of Commons being unable to investigate the busi-
ness, a Commission would be appointed.—(Hear.)
The Commission might he a year making its report,
so that a Member might be kept two years from his
seat. By this Commission they made a Board of
Record the judge of their privileges, and of all they
held most dear. They formed it out of three Peers,
one of whom was to be the Chairman, and four Mem-
bers of that House, all appointed by the
Minister of the day. took for a moment at
the absurdity of that arrangement. They denied
a Peer the right of voting for a Member of Parlia-
ment, they resisted his interference with their privi-
leges, and yet by a singular inconsistency they wanted
now to make a commission, having a Peer for its
President should decide upon their privileges and
become a Board of Record. Never was anything
more monstrous, it was the most complete
anomaly he ever neard. And for what object
was it to be formed ? What real objection had
they to the Committee as now formed? The real
objection was this, that they had no systematic method
of obtaining remedies, for the evidence which one ,

Committee' wouldreceive atiotbei would reject. Tile-
consequence of that was, that the Report. of Com-
mittees On the same point frequently &tiered. They
required then .some assessor, who would be' able to
state what evidence ought, and what ought not
to be received. Report said—he did not know
whether it was true—that the ,Noble Lord
made this Commission for the express purpose of
putting as President at' its head a Noble Lord—the
Ex-Chancellor—Who •iits very desirous of obtaining
such an appointment. Whether that was really the
case he (Mr. Mackinnon) could not say, but such
had,. been whispered in certain circles. He (Mr.
'Mackinnon) maintained that they wanted no Corn-
mission of that sort. If they wanted a supe-
rior tribunal, with an assessor to determine what
evidence should be received and what rejected,
in Heaven's name let Mr. Speaker appoint seven
Members of that House, and get a Judge or
a Sergeat-at-law to sit as assessor over this ,ont-
mmission, and direct the Members what ought
and what ought not to be received as evidence. If
any differences in the, determinations of Committees
bad occurred, they had arisen, be was sm e, not from
any corruption or partiality on the part of the Com-
Mittecei but simply from their inability to determine,
after the addresses of Counsel on either side, what
evidence it was their duty to receive and what to reject.
Tinder these circumstances he maintained that the
Commission which Was proposed by this Bill was not
only useless, but Wholly contrary to the law as it now
stood. He thought that they would be injuring the
institution if they allowed any one branch of the Le-
gislature to interfere with the other. He had much
more apprehension of that House interfering with the
privileges of the House of Lords, than of the House
of Lords interfering with the privileges ,of that House;
but he was opposed to the Commission because it vio-
tated the principle upon which they had always
acted, never to allow any Peer to interfere
with election matters. He now wished to call
the attention of the House to the 35th clause.
A clause which .he conceived to have a
most suspicious tendency. The Hon. Member then
read the clause, which y provided that when costs,
charges, and expenses, should be reported and or,
dered to be paid by the inhabitants of any borough or
county, the Clerk of the Peace or the treasurer
of the county shall levy a rate upon the
voters of the borough, city, or county, as the
case May be, for carrying on the expenses of
any petitions on the score of bribery. Now he called
upon the House to look at the monstrous anomaly of
this clause. Assuming, for example, that there were
in the borough of. Ipswich 1,000 voters, and that of
those 450' on each side were honest electors,
and the remaining-hundred were the very lowest de-
scription of 101. voters, what were they going to do.
by thiS clause ? They were, going to levy a rate on
the wealthy part of the community, who would
have to 'pay the 'whole expense of petitioning.
He could conceive nothing more opposed to the ordi-
nary principles of' legislation than such a mode of pro-
ceeding. He trusted, however, that those clauses to
which he objected might be amended in CoMmittee ;
.and if this were done, he could have no objection to
the Bill: He should not, therefore, press the motion
of which he had given notice, that the Bill should be
committed that dgy six months. He felt that by then
dividing. the Howe on such a motion be would only
embarrass those *ith whom he usually coincided in
opinion. •
. _

Sir R. PEEL begged to assure his Hon. Friend
that he could not feel any embarrassment as to the
course he should pursue on that occasion, as he was
prepared to act upon his own convictions respecting
the measure.
Mr. MACKINNON said that he wished to avoid
voting against his own friends. He begged leave,
therefore, to withdraw his motion.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
After a few words from Sir A. H. INGus and
Mr. O'CONNELL .the House resolved into a Com-
mittee t-,n the Bill, Mr. GREENE in the Chair.
Mr. C. BULL ;.R said that there were three
clauses, from 34 to 37, which, although he thought
the principle valuable, he had, upon consideration,
made up his mind to withdraw fbr the present. There
were technical difficulties which might prevent their
provisions from being easily earned into effect.

Sir IL INGLIS said he-would not follow the Hon.
Gentleman in his details. The objection he had to
the Bill was one ofprinciple, and perhaps there would
be no objection to take the discussion then.—
(Order, order.). .

On clause 1 beip_g proposed—
Mr. O'CONNELL said it seemed to him that ar-
rangements could be made to pay head-money with-
out infringing this clause. He thought that if head-
money was paid before the vote was given, it would
not come within the operation of the clause.
Sir IL PEEL said that if money were paid before
the vote was given, it would be considered as bribery.
—Wear, hear.) If the- words "in pursuance of any
usage" were left out, he thought it mould cure the
objection of the Hon. and Learned Gentkinan.
Mr. BERNAL agreed with the Right Honour-
able Baronet. To pay money before the vote
was given was bribery under the existing law.
With respet to basket-money, that was a sort of
retaining fee, and was, in effect, 'decided bribery.
Such a system ought to be put a stop to. as well as
head. money.
Mr. TURNER knew that, in many instances
where -taxes had not been paid, they were settled by
the candidates. He wished to know from the Right
Hon. Baronet whether that was, or was not an of-
fence ?

Sir R. PEEL was not competent to answer that
question.
Mr. O'CONNELL proposed the insertion of the
words "" before, at, or after," in the clause.
Tlie AT TORNEY-GENERAL thought the words
unnecessary-.
Mr. OVONNELL said that his object was to
prevent the payment of money on any contract. But
if the lion. and Learned Gentleman thought they
would encumber the clause, he would not persevere
in them.

Sir R. PEEL thought it better to leave the
general clause respecting bribery untouched, and
then to recite that practice of paying various
sums of money under the names of basket money,
head money, &c., to voters prevailed at elections, and
that those practices should be considered as bribery.
Mr, O'CONNELL mentioned, as an instance of
such practices, that at the last Belfast election one
party had paid 7501 for car hire.
SHEIL quoted the Report of the Compromise
Election Committee to show that the stopping of
direct bribery caused an increase of treating. He
suggested the necessity of introducing a clause to put
an end to the practice of giviug dinners to voters,
which was often adopted in the place of head money.
Mr. MILNES would suggest that it would be as
well to insert in that clause something to the effect
that there was a doubt as to what constituted
bribery. He thought that was only fair to
the constituencies in which that usage had prevailed.
At the same time,, he thought the definition
of head money by te Right Hon. Gentleman was
perfectly correct. . Head -money no doubt was spent
in festivities which succeeded the election.

Mr. BERNAL thought what had fallen from the
Right lion. Gentleman was deserving of very great
attention. He remembered the Right HMI. Gentleman
framing a measure to meet the great evil of intimidation,
but he gave up that measure, as he found that to dove-
tail that measure (n that Bill would be to impede the
progress of that measure.. He (Mr. Bernal) went the
full length of the ..Right Hon. Gentleman about treat-
ing; and. unless they did something to remedy this evil
they would do no good. They would find that as much
mischief aroso after the passing of the Bill as before.
It had been proved that a great sum had been paid
to colour men in Newcastle. There were other men
who did not arry colours, yet they walked before
the colour• men, and were termed " gapers." They
were all voters,and were paid. Now, all these points
deserved consideration. To-morrow a Committee
in No. 1, might decide that paying the colour-men
and the " gaffers,"
,was not bribery, while the Com-
mittee in No. 2, might hold that it was
bribery. lie wits well aware of the danger
of proving that clause, and he should, therefore,
suggest that the Right Hon. Gentleman, who was
sponsor to this Bill,. should omit the clause, and
mrke the Bill a Bill of discovery, to discover bribery.
Mr. S. WORTLEY was quite of opinion that no
just conclusion on a subject of so much im-
portance could be arrived at, without Some
proper tribunal. If this Bill should establish
such a tribunal he could not help thinking that
it would be sufficient to confine the enactment of the
lst clause to the single purpose of removing the doubt
which existed in the present law, which would then
leave enough pdwer and discretion in the bands
of the Tribunal. He agreed with the Hon. Member
for liungarvon, that the practice of giving dinners to
voters might, in marry instances, come under the head
of bribery as much as giving money for a vote. lie
must, however, be cautious in distinguishing 'Jet's-seen
proceedings really intended to operate in the election
by influencing the voters ; and bona fide festivities
given at a time of 'exultation by a candidate to his
constituents. He thought that they might have the
existing clause on bribery, as it was with the
addition, which might be placed in the preamble, for
the purpose of removing the doubt which existed in
the present law.
Air. AGLIONBY -said the remarks of the Member
for Weymouth showed how difficult it would be to
prevent bribery and corruption, but he showed
no grounds whatever why the Honourable
Member for Liskeard should withdraw his clause.
If this clause did not do all that could be wished, it
at least removed one. great evil. lie did not know
what course he would pursue until he knew whether
or not the words proposed to be introduced, namely,
" before," " at," or " after," were adopted by the
House.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

IMPERIAL PAML/AIIIEIS T.
HOUSE OF LORD.• Ju
ruoß-LAW o
BILL.

(6:whaled front our Fourth Etiition of last night.)
The Duke of WELLINGTON must interrupt the
Noble Lord ; when he said they had acquired the name
of bastiles, it was only from those who thought like
the Noble Lord himself.—(A laugh.)
Lord STAN HOPE contended that they were bastiles,
the Commissioners only issuing their Iftires-de-cachet
against the poor. They were prisons in their form, their
seclusion, their rigour, and worse than prisons in the
quantity and quality of the food given in them. Since
the enactment of the law there had been a fearful
increase of crime. The state of the labouring
population must be various in different places ;
but at the present time it was worse
than it had been at any period of his
recollection. As to the economy of the measure,
which was to be one of its chief recommendations,
in the agricultural districts the rates had fearfully in-
creased, in one place from 3s. to 1 ls. in the
pound. He complained that the poor had no remedy
under the law ,if it injured them ; it was
adding insult to injury to tell them that they could go
by a writ of certiorari to the Court of Queen's Bench.
Cases of injustice and oppression had occurred, and in
those cases the Poor-law Commissioners, in the per-
sons of the Assistant-Commissioners, had themselves
been the judges. Their Lordships could not read a
newspaper without finding recorded cases of starvation
to death, and of suicide occasioned by horror of the
workhouse. Had they not read of cases where petty
thefts were committed for the sake of avoiding starvation
in the comfortable asylum of a gaol ? Had not all this
misery been occasioned by the accursed infamous Act,
as the late Lord Eldon justly termed it ? They might
repeal .the Act; but they could never recal to life the
thousands who had been murdered in the rew prisons.
He warned their Lordships to beware in time. There
was no.animal so weak ur so tame that ill-treatment
long continued would not rouse to anger. Charles the
First was brought to the scaffold by the atten pt to levy
ship-money, and Charles the Tenth, surrounded by
powerful army, was hurled from his throne. Let them
beware of the consequence of upholding this iniquitous
law, or they would see similar events in this country
—they would shortly see a general, convulsion.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—ConvuIsion !

The Earl of STANHOPE—Yes, convulsion ; and he
was very glad the Noble Duke had heard the word, anti
he hoped it would be a warning to him.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—Oh, I admire it.—
,
(Great laughter.)

The En-iq of gTANHOPE wished to warn the Noble
Duke what fate this Bill must work out for their Lord-
ship 3 individually and collectively—(Laughter and
cheers)—if on being weighed in the balance they were
found warning. —(Laughter.)
,The Noble Earl &In-
cluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time
this day six months.
The Earl of GALLOWAY (we believe) seconded
the motion.

Lord BROUGHAM (who was much cheered) said
that he agreed with one observation of his Noble Friend,
and with one only ; and he should take nearly the same
course as the Noble Earl had marked out for himself, but
had not very strictly followed, namely, not to occupy the
time of the House unnecessarily long.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) He had repeatedly consulted with , his
Noble Friend on this subject, and had often given his
reasons in that House for not agreeing with his Noble
Friend in his objections to a measure which was proved
to have operated beneficially fin- those who were the
main and sole objects of the measure, and for whose good
it was alone intended. His Noble Friend had brought.
forward tha same charges which had already been dis-
proved to their Lordships' satisfaction. He had brought
forward the same charges, without any change in his own
terms—with the same vehemence, with the same ear-
nestness, with the same vague geueralities, and with the
same unconsidered declamation.—(Hear.) If his Noble
Friend had varied the charges in their form, if he had
altered the tone of his vituperation, it he had in any sort
limited the vagueness of his attacks, and alleged something
specific against the Commissioners ' and the law, he
(Lord Brougham) would have felt it his duty to reply to
his statements, and to assert the usefulness of the law,
of which he had been one of the most eminent pro-
moters. Be Would therefore occupy their Lordships no
more than by referring in one short u ord to the con
elusion of his Noble Friend's address, which had no
novelty.—(Hear, hear.) Ile said that the conclusion of
his Noble Friend's speech was no novelty, for more
than once the Noble Earl had himself set himself
the example.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Noble Earl
used lavishly the terms " oppression and murder" as
applied to the authorities, and " rebellion and con-
vulsion" when he addressed himself to the poor.—
(Cheers.) The Noble Earl prophesied revolution and
anarchy—a prophecy which, under the same circum-
stances amongst any other people, might, like
other prophecies of evil, verify itself.—(Chters.) But
he trusted his Noble Friend himself, in his calmer mo-
ments (if, on this subject, he was ever fated to experi-
ence a calm moment), would be sorry for the tone in
which he had discussed, and the prejudices through
which he had viewed this question.—(Great cheering.)
If his Noble Friend should ever have reason to lament
his indulgence in this extraordinary and most extrava
pant course, he hoped the Noble Lords regret would be
confined to the rpeeches themselves, fcr he believed that
the good sense of the people of this country could not be so
far led astray as to forget, as.other nations had forgotten;
their duty to the peace of the land—their duty to the
laW—their duty, as good subjects, to the Crown—as good
citizens to the State—awl, as prudent citizens, to them-
selves. The Noble Lord sat down amid great cheering.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed on Thursday.
tsCHOOLMASTERS IN SCOTLAND..

The Earl of GALLOWAY presented a petition
from It choohnasters of the parochial schools in Scotland.
complaining of the inadequacy of their salaries, and pray-
ing Parliamentary relief.
Lord ABERDEEN laid upon the table papers connec-
ted with the slave trade, and other documents which had
been moved for.