The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-03 00:00:00

IMPEItIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF. LORDS, May 2. ,
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord BROUGHAM (in continuation)
3
The Judges of this country did not deem it inconsistent
with their duty or below their dignity to let their coun.; _
trymen know how they gave judgment in .any case' st
When they were agreed; . one delivered the
,s
ludgment—when they differed, each delivered their .rt
judgment. The:Judges did not egnsider it inconsistent ' )
with their duty or below their dignity to assign a reason:
for their judgment. In proportion as the question was im-
portant, and in proportion as the matter was difficult, the
more they considered it to be their duty, and the best
foundation of their dignity, to give a reason for their
opinion, because on reason they desired the authority of •
their judgment to rest. ,These Committees were not
impartially chosen, except a Committee could be called
impartial; constituted by three party merlon one side and
three equally party men on the other, with a party •
chairmari over the other. SIX.. These judges, so ap-
pointed, so selected, sitting on
_a party_ question, in every
which question - that could by possibility come before
them they were of necessity parties interested—wrapped -
in themselves—never gave their opinions in public, and
never gave oneatom of -reason for the delivery of the
judgment to which they had- come. - He had no manner
of doubt that this-system could not possibly last. These
questions shOuld be decided upon- Judicial authority by
persons unconnecti d with the 'party, not as it now ex-
isted; where the judge in' the case was a party in the
cause, and from, whom no appeal could be made. So
long as they allowed the judge to be a Member of the
other House of Parliament, so Jong as that continued, „,s
they had of absolute necessity. this anomaly, this monster. 14
in judicial proceedings, a Court without appeal, in which,. si
one way or the other, more or less, the parties in the'
cause were those who had to decide the questiotk.
tie had no hesitation in saying that sooner or later this -'
would be the result of all experiments on - the
question. To the question of whether the HouSe
of Commons could part with its jurisdiction,
his answer was that it would have been consistent
had it been urged before the passing-of the Grenville,
Act of 1770, by which the House had parted with its
jurisdiction to a statutory tribunal, acting on • statute -
law, the only difference being that the members of the
Court must be Members of the House of Commons. All 0
these experiments and their failure, in the hands of:
men of ability and integrity, it must be admitted was •
a striking proof of -the absolute necessity of a great '
change in the system. He had deemed it his duty, at as
early a period as possible, to.draw their Lordship's fatten'.
tion both to the working of the former; acts; and the ne7
cessity of a change. There was animportaut oversight -
in the Act of last session, which they had passed_exactly,
as it came from the House of Commons, .with theexeeps
Lion of the three first clauses; which they had struck out
altogether. This Act made-it imperative en -the-Com-
mittees to report not only whether the sitting. Members
were duly elected or not, but also to report if the fact,. .
of bribery had-been proved. If there, were- any ,doubta'
whether it was intended that they shOuld give the detail ,
of all the special facts on which the charges Were founded,
he was willing to give them the benefit Of it ; but they,
were certainly called on- to report whether the sitting
Members .or . the candidates - had known. or con-
' seated to the bribery charged against them.
There had been two or three cases at least in which bri-
bery has been proved against boroUghs, and in two of
the. cases the sitting Members were unseated on the '
ground of bribery by their agents, but' there was no
knowledge of; or consent to, that bribery brought home
to the sitting -Member, and yet the extent of the statute
was that that finding should be final. Nothing could. •:'
be more important than the constitution of those tribu-
nals. He would not now detain their Lordships having
last session brought the question before their, and called
for a Committee for a Mere thorough investigation of
the statute. All they had suspected of them, and all that,
upOn partial investigation they had. believed, Was. now ,
•'
demonstrated by the late .proccwdings before these COm-.
mittees 'to have existed, in a•greater:lueaz,ure, and in a '
worse shape, and in a more painful substance, than they
suspected at the close of the general electioni ; and it,
would become the boundenduty of their Lordships, as 3
_ .
guardians of the law—es guardians of the morals of the"
country—as guardians of the purity of Parlhuent, aye, • 0.1
and as protectora of the very exist-dice of the mixed and .
popular Constitution itself—it Would become their absce;
lutely bounden duty further to prosecute this inquiry and
investigate, the details of the corruption and bribery—
the profligate bribery and corruption which had pre-
vailed. With this view on the one hand, and on the -
other with the intent of enabling the-House to ascertain
the working and the defects of the two or three BUIS
which had already passed in relation to this subject,
he now moved that a message be sent to the House of ,
Commons to communicate the Reports of -the Sudbury,
Ipswich, and Marlow Election 'Committees, and which
they have ordered to be specially reported.-(Cheers.)
The LORD. CHANCELLOR said that he had made
inquiry on the subject of his Noble and Learned Friend's
motion, and, without being more explicit, he would ask
his Noble and Learned Friend whether he would perse,r ;
vere in his motion?
Lord BROUGHAM said he perfectly well understood.
what his Noble and Learned Friend alluded to; but in
1837 a message, was sent to the'other House of Parlia-
ment for a report made upon the practice that preimiled
in respect to petitions and improper votes, with a view
of ascertaining whether the Reform IEII had been de-
feated by this practice. .
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had made
inquiries, but had received, no answer at present to his .5'
message.
The EARL of WICItLOW said he could not under-- "'
stand. how, when any Bill came to that House, it could,,
be set aside without that information which the House of: 7
Commons was in possession of, and he hoped that where' ss,
any future Bill came before them for the purpose of
amending the law on this point the Noble and Leitrned
Lord. would bring forward his motion, and that such
evidence would be communicated 'to them as would ens • ,
able their Lordships to- give due. consideration to thO
subject..
Lord CANTERBURY said that the Noble ands
. , . .
Learned Lerd-Opposite referred to the Report of the
Comurittee in 1837, asked for by this House with regard
to the fictitious votes, but that Committee was appointed,
by the other House, forthe express purpose of providing in
formationon the 'subject. IlisrNoble and Learned Friend.' '
said that the House of Commons could not interfere at
all with the-Election Committees by way of suggestion "
or instruction, and 'in that he (Lord C.) agreed with hinis
If the House of Commons proceeded to disfranchise, or 14i•
to act in any way with respect to a corrupt borough,, fa
• • they could only do so by a legislative measure, and that
measure must necessarily come before their Lordship's •
House ; and it was precisely the same with reference to
the report of fictitious votes. His-Noble and Learned
Friend said, that he thought it would be a useful check .
on the proceedings of these Committees, if their minutes
~
were always brought up and laid before the other House. s
• He (Lord Canterbury) did not deny that it might be so,
but to effect that-there must be an alteration in the Act
of Parliament. The House Of Commons had always
felt very ,;ealous of its own constitution and priiileges,
and if his Noble and -Learned Friend were to send a,
'message of the kind he proposed to the House of Coins' 4,
mons, that 'House would send an answer by a message of ':
its own, to the effect, probably,'t'iat in the limits of the
present session they could Lot find time to reply.—
, (Hear, and a laugh.) lie did not think that the message
which his Noble Friend proposed would be at all bene-
ficial, nor did he think, it even a favourable answer to
his Message were received, that he would find he had ad-
vaneed one single step in the progress of the under. '
taking which he. Lord C.)-rejoiced to.- hear that he had -
counnenced. Further, he was sure his Noble and ,
Learned Friend would concur with him, that in a matter.
of so great importance it would be better that the tivo •
Houses should go together. The House of Commons
was very jealous of anything that should touch its pri-
vileges -as is- the constitution of its own body, and he,(l/40
was; sure they ought to do all they could to carry the ',4:-11
House of Commons with them in' so great and beneficiala
nieasure. - He should deeply regret that 'any step :I'7,
shoidd be taken which would break up the cordiality -
between the two Houses. For these reasons he was very s
much relieved in hearing that it was the intention of his )lif„
Noble and Learned Friend not to press his motion on ,
,et""
the House.
Lord BROUGHAM certainly heard with the greatest --
respect the' Observations- of his Noble Friend who he4",---1
so long 'filled the chair of the other House,
.and whQ -
opinions he knew intimately coincided with his own (ist
this subject ; but his Noble Friend did not agree it
hinathat the Committees of the Huse of Commons mete",
as legislative bodies. Why, in one of the cases to whial...q
he had referred, the CoMmittee, called on the House to.. it
disfranchise a borough! Was not that legislation? 1-/0'"," • •
n-
ever, it was nut his intention to press the motion, fd
with their Lordships' leave he would withdraw- it.
The motion was withdrawn accordingly.
-SPIRITUAL DESTITUTION (CATHOLICS).
Lord CLIFFORD presented_ six petitions froin Roman.
Catholics, complaining of want of religious instruction . •
amongst the poor of their persuasion, and especially of -
the want of religiouS assistance in workhouses and gaols,
and in her Majesty's army abroad. The Noble Lord s;
took that opportanity to refer to the motion made by the (.f,
Noble and Learned Lord with . reference to bribery at
elections, stating that he thought the Noble and Learned . ss.
Lord, by bringing the subject forward, had conferred'
as'4`)''
'benefit on the country, almost greet enough to compels-
sate for the loss of his Parliamentary services.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

. . •
•
, HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 2.
INCOME-TAX BILL.
Clause 52 was proposed, and, after a few words from
Mr. S. O'BRIEN, agreed to.
Clauses 53 up to 59 were then severally put, and
agreed to without any amendments.
Clause 60, and schedule (A) which lays down the
general rules for estimating lands, tenements, and here • 4'
ditarnents, were then proposed. . ;tot
Rule No. 1, schedule A, was agreed to, after a short
conversation, in the course of which •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
if there had been a lease of lands executed during the. .10
seven years preceding, the amount stated in the 'woo .o:111
should be taken as the value of the profits. If nn lease ';./9!tf
had been executed the poor-rate should be taken as tiblif's,44il
basis for the calculation by the value of the property.
-ye
Rule No. 2 was agreed to. irl?
On Rule No. 3, for estimates, the value of mines,.&e., :04;.4 p
being proposed,
Mr. GILL said that he never could consent that in-
dustry
should be taxed in the same manner as fixed pro-
perty, and, therefore, he proposed to substitnte for the ,
words of the section, as it at present stood, words to the
effect that the value should .be computed at the rate of
five per cent., on every 100/. capital of such property du-
ring
the year preceding the assessment, and that
for the purposes of this Act the product should
be taken as the amount of property to be assessed.
This tax was a tax that never could be received with
)-