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

_—
second place, it gave a most unfair advantage
to the man of we:this, who was able, if dis-
posed, to corrupt a constituency. He knew nothing
more likely to deter a man possessed of the, necessary
qualifications for fulfilling the situation of a Member of
Parliament, even if he had the command of money, than
the necessity of spending money four or five weeks pre-
vious to the election in encouraging habits of drunken-
ness. If it was possible, therefore, to prevent treating
at elections he would not oppose an attempt to discou-
rage the practice. Under the present system it would
seem as if they practically gave a legislative sanction to
treating previous to the testing of the writ. A law had
been passed to the effect that treating would be illegal
after the testing of the writ ; and the result of that law,
although it was a result not contemplated by the framers
of the measure, was, that parties considered they might
lawfully have recourse to treating before the writ
had beets tested. It appeared to him that the establish-
ment of such an impression was a great evil, and one
which they should endeavour, if possible, to remove.
He confessed that if they could deal satisfactorily with
the system of head-money, and of treating, they ought,
in his opinion, to snake the attempt, and take precau-
tions against that which he believed to be of all species
of bribery the most degrading and corrupting—namely,
the spending of immense sums of money, which led, in
many places, to the most brutal scenes—(Hear)—and
the immoral effects of.which tended to disturb the opera-
tions of indsistry, to corrupt constituencies, and to give
an undue advantage to wealth ovyr means comparatively

limited.
Mr. HARDY said that it was most desirable to pre-
vent any improper expenses at elections, however they
might be incurred. Ile hoped the Hon. Gentleman who
had the conducting of the Bill would persevere in his
attempt to suppress illegal treating and the practice of
distributing head-money. It was encouraging a prac-
tice tending to make elections expensive, and thereby
precluding men of small fortune from standing as candi-
dates. He thought that candidates should be prohibited
from giving head-money on account of any preceding
election, ar.d with that alteration he hoped the clause
would pass.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought it essentially
necessary that this clause should not be expunged. He
thought that the practice should be set forth in the
clause, that it should also be stated that doubts had pre-
wailed as to 'the nature of the practice, and that it be
declared to be bribery. He thought it would be inexpe-
dient to introduce into this clause any thing relating to
flag-men, for if flag-men were engaged for their votes,
there could be no doubt but that that was bribery: He
thought it would be a great improvement to do away
with the distinction which subsisted at present between
treating taking place before the test of the writ, and after
it. He would be very happy. to render his Hon. and
Learned Friend any assistance in his power, between this
and bringing up the Report, fur the framing of a clause
to meet this purpose.
Mr. C. BULLER said lie would be happy to withdraw
the clause under discussion for the present, in order to
bring it forward at a later stage of the Bill in an
amended state.
Mr. O'CONNELL regretted that the clause was to be
postponed. He so much valued the enactment it pro-
posed, that if the clause were nut withdrawn, he would
withdraw his own amendments.
Mr. C. BULLER said that his only object in post-
p ring the clause was to prevent any obliqueness in their
legislation.
Mr. ESCOTT would not oppose the clause, because it
was, in his opinion,. not only the best clause in the Bill,
but was the most effectual to put an end to bribery and
corruption.—The clause was then postponed.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Mr. BERNAL wished to know how far this clause
gave a power to Committees to compel agents to dis-
close matters touching their clients ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the clause
was intended to give the Committee power to examine
the sitting Members, or any of the candidates, in cases
where they would not otherwise have any eontrol.—
(Hear, hear.) It left the question of the rules of evi-
dence untouched.
Mr. BERNAL said, the reason he put the question
was, that when an attempt was made to compel Mr.
Mr. Lamb to disclose circumstances entrusted to him by
his client relative to a Cornish borough, he was. com-
mitted to custody in consequence of his refusal to an-
swer. All he wished to know was, whether the subject
was left as it was at present ?
Sir R. INGLIS did not see why the ordinary privi-
leges of professional' agents should be withdrawn from
them in this case. Every crime seemed now to be cen-
tered in the sin of bribery. He objected to the latter
part of the clause.
Mr. O'CONNELL regretted to hear the Hon. Mem,-
ber speak with levity of the crime of bribery ; it was
unjustly obtaining a power over the lives and properties
of men, and it was essentially an enormous crime. As
to the question, of examining an attorney, the privilege
was the client's, and where the principal could be
examined, there could be no doubt but they might
examine the agent. He should support the clause.
After a few words from the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL.
Mr. SHELL said the subject on which the attorney
was to be examined was not a breach of confidence, as
their intercourse must have been a criminal one.
Sir R. INGLIS explained what he had said of the
crime of bribery, in reference to what had fallen from
the Hon and Learned Member for Cork. He had not
underrated the crime of bribery, but it appeared to him
to be considered that if Members avoided bribery
they were open to every other political offence. But he
was not of that degree of political purity as to think it
was the only or the greatest crime ; there were other
political offences as well worthy the attention of the
Hon. Members for Dungarvon and Cork—that of inti-
midation for instance.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. BULLER said that the candidates being gene-
rally found quite ignorant of the practices of their
agents, it was necessary to examine the latter. He did
not believe they had any professional privilege in
such eases, as they were not in communication with their
clients.
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL said if he thought
the clause would have the effect which had been stated
by several Members, it should not have his support, but
being convinced that it would have a different operation,
he should support it. In supporting the clause, how-
ever, he must be understood as not pledging himself to
assent to all the other clauses in the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in order to show
the Committee his opinion of the clause, would move, as
an amendment, that all persons whatever should be ex-
amined as witnesses, touching all the matters in question.
Mr. DARBY deprecated the new powers given
by the Act for the examination of agents. He should
propose to leave out all words compelling Members to be
examined.
Mr. C. BULLER was of opinion that the amendment
of the Attorney-General would answer the required
purpose.
Mr. ESCOTT disagreed both with his Hon. and
Learned Friend (the Solicitor-General) and the Right
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell). If this offence warn
as bad as murder, they had no right to resort to illegal
and unjustifiable means to find it out. He should give
his most strenuous opposition to anything which would
provide that, because they were about to endeavour to
put an end to a mischievous practice, they should resort
to a practice wholly illegal and still more mischievous.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL. defended the legality
of the clause, which he said gave powers to inquire into
the terms of compromises—whether they were bona fide,
or were entered into for the purpose of preventing in-
dictments for bribery. That was the object of the
clause ; and he contended that it would be impossible to
carry out the clause without examining the sitting
Members and the candidates. He should, therefore, vote
against the proposition of his Hon. and Learned Friend,
the Member for Sussex (Mr. Darby).
Mr. AGLIONBY was afraid that if those technical
objections were constantly raised they would shelve
the Bill altogether. His object was to prevent bri-
ber,' altogether, and to punish those guilty of it,
and with that view he should vote for the exami-
nation of the Members, the candidates, and the
agents. He had no idea of the agent being allowed to
escape an examin,ation on the ground of privileged com-
munications. If a professional man chose to undertake
such dirty work, and to go about attempting to sully the
purity and honour of his neighbours, he deserved to be
submitted to a most rigid examination.
Mr. DARBY regretted that the Noble Lord, and the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman whose names were at the
back of the Bill were not present, because he (Mr.
Darby) had always understood both , now and "up
stairs." that it was not intended to alter the clause as
far as related to privileged communications, which had
always been held sacred.
Mr. BERNAL said they all knew the great incon-
venience which had occurred, owing to questions being
put before Committees in an indefinite manner, This
was a most important clause, and he wished to know
whether the Hon. Member (Mr. Buller) acquiesed in
what had been suggested by the Hon. Member tor Cock-
ermouth, and provide that solieitors and agents should
be protected in giving evidence before a Committee.
Mr. ESCOTT hoped the Hon. and Learned Member
would discuss this clause on broad principles, and tell
the Committee what cases these new rules were to be
altplied to. The ordinary rules of evidence must be
ered altogether, inasmuch as the offence was entirely
new. Bribery could not be tried by the ordinary rules
of evidence ; if the lion. and Learned Gentleman thought
that such was the case, he (Mr. Escott) could assure him
that he was mistaken.
Mr. C. BULLER would reiterate what he had said
before, that this was not the proper time to discuss the
question of bribery—the subject then under discussion
was that of compromise. When the 26th clause was
proposed, then would be the proper time to go into the
question of bribery, but at present they were confined to
the subject of compromise.
Mr. HENLEY said he objected to this clause on prin-
ciple, and on account of its consequences. To prove the
offence of bribery they were to adopt means they did not
use in high treason, murder, or felony. But it' they chose
to do this let them not do it by a side-wind. By this
clause they placed Committees in the situation of being
obliged to report black one day, and white the next. He
would wish to see the clause erased altogether.
Mr. SHELL said it appeared to him that they had to
consider the distinction between what evidence could be
received from an agent, and what could not. With re-
spect to what was done by an agent, gentlemen oppo-
site could not object to that agent giving evidence. If
what he did was by the direction of his client, that al-
tered the matter. That was the protection given to the
agent. With respect to this question, he thought the
words proposed by the Attorney-General would meet
the difficulty complained of, as the proviso proposed pre-
served the present rules of evidence.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said be was quite
ready to agree to any words which would remove a
doubt from the elapse. He objected to this clause, as, he
did not think it would have the desired effect. With re-
gard
.to the cases of briWry referred to by-the lion.