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

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.

• Sir R. FEEL thought it was better to leave out
the words altogether, and to make the proof of the
existence of the usage proof of the existence of
the offence. They should not, because they could not,
remedy all the • abuses, refuse to cure an ad.•
mated evil. When the Bill was brought forward
by the Noble Lord, be said that he thought
any attempt to discourage it would be. ineffectual,
if they left the law as to treating as it
then stood, and that if they could during the
present session, without unnecessary interfe-
rence with the liberty of the subject, throw
impediments in the way of treating, they would be effect-
ing- a greet practical good. One of the greatest abuses
connected with the present sygtent of elections was by
corruption of voters by means of treating. In the first
plsro it corrupted Ow constituencies, end iutroduccd
-most immoral habits, the effect of which was much more
permanent than the duration of the election. In the

second place, it gave a most unfair advantage
to the. man of wealth, 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-
u:..•Ss. 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 been tested. It appeared to him that the establish-
ment of such an impression was a great evil, and one
%Illicit 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,
hi his opinion, to make the attempt, and take precau-
tions against that which lie 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 must brutal scenes—(Hear)—and
the immoral effects of which tended to disturb the opera-
tions of industry, to corrupt constituencies, and to give
an undue advantage to wealth over means comparatively

Mr. HARDY. said that it was most des'rabl to pre-
vent any improper expenses at elections, however they
might be incurred. He 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 maize elections expensive, and ther'by
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 1
election, argil with that alteration h 3 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-
veiled 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 Hag-men were engaged for their votss,
there could be no doubt but that that was bribery. Be
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. lie would be very happy. to render his Hon. and
Learned Friend any assistance in his power, between this 1
and bringing up the Report, for the framing of a clause
to meet this purpose. • .
Mr. C. BULLER sail he 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.
Me O'CONNELL regretted that the clause was to be
postponed. He so much valued the enactment it pro-
posed, that if the clause were not withdrawn, he would
withdraw his own amendments.
Mr. C. BULLER said that his only object in post-
poning the clause was to prevent any obliqueness in their
legislation. •
Mr. ESCOTT would not oppose the clause, because it
wes, in his opinion, not only the best clause in the Bill,
but was the most effectual to put an end to bribery and
corruption.-L--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 control.—
(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
waif 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. SHEIL said the subject on which the attorney
was to be examined was not a breach -of confidence, as
their intercourse must he.ve been a criminal one.
Sir R. INGLIS explained what he had said of the
crime of bribery, in referenco to what had fallen from
the Hon and Learned Member for Cork. He had not
underrated the crime of bribery, but it appeared to hint
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
lion. Meinhers for Dungarvon and Cork---that of inti-
midation for instance,—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. BULLER said that-the candidates being gene-
rally found quite • ienorant •of the practices .of _ their
agents, it was necessary to examine the latter. He did
not .believe they had any professional privilege in
such cases, 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 were
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 shbuld 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 lion. 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-
bery 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 tin examination 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 Lora, 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 ell 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 lion. Member for, Cock-
ermouth, and provide that eolieiturs 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 eases these new rules were to be
applied to. The ordinary rules of evidence must be
altered altogether, inasmuch as the offence was entirely
new. Bribery could not be tried by the ordinary rules
of evidence ; if the Hon. 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 be 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 mean's they did not
use in'high treason, murder, or felony. But if 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. SHEIL 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 complahled of, as the proviso proposed pre-
served the pres,mt, nth s of evidence.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he was quite
ready to agree 'to any words which would remove a
doubt fecm the clause. He Utijectec. u,this (Joust., as he
did not think it would- the cice.itcti e&et. \Via: re-
gard to the euses of bribery referred to by the Lion.

Member for Sussex, he would find that they were pr. 9
vided for by the 26th and 27th clauses. If this claus
were agreed to, he' thought that some words ought to be
introduced, providing that no alteration should 1),3 roack
in the present rules of evidence.
After a few Words from Mr. DARBY, -which, were.,,
inaudible, , sake

Mr. HARDY wished to know if they intended to mas,
compromise a crime, because if they did not,- and he did'
not see how they could, they were nesting time by ins
quiring into the compromise when they ought to inquirna
into the acts of bribery. •
Mr. O'CONNELL was apprehensive that the Dora
and Learned Gentleman who had the care of that .
endeavouring to oblige certain parties - by omitting cer-
tain parts of the Bill, would make- it, as he state".
simple Bill indeed, and inoperative. He thought he kJ.
wrong in merely inquiring into the compromises
rot 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. I)ARBY proposed an alteration in the clause, the
purport-of which would be to confine the inquiry -to the
tact of a compromise having taken place.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that would render the inquiry
perfectly
.inoperative. It would be better to give up the
Bill at once.. '
Mr. ESCOTT would not support any inquiry which
should Le incperative. He wished to know why the,
were to alter the rules of evidence, in order to make en&
this new offence. Everything done ouiy:ht to be dune in
a judicial manner. • •
Mr. DARBY withdrew his amendment.
Mr. C. BU in,
the moved some verbal amendments n;
the clause, %Aft!' were agreed to.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the insertion
of words to the etfeet- that these witnesses should bee,
examined, subject to the ern; Lary rules of evidence.
the House sanctioned the 26th dn ese, sv Melt he did nets
anticipate, the Heuse, weuld then, of course, 'strike theo
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 Howe as to the examinatioj .y!
professional agents. He would certainly do his utinq's
to prevent persons taking advantage of these comanal
canons being professional and confidential to avoid aid; •
closing their to the Committee. He hoped that, in cost'
of compromise, ComMittees would enter into an ing4o4
as to acts of bribery having been committed. Unlesil
i
inquiry was instituted. into acts of bribery, it wouldbe.'
childish to inquire into the compromise.
Mr. O'CON NELL said •the amendment would &stioy
entirely the effect of the remaining words of the elplt
Gentlemen -seemed to have soma sort of enthusiasts/
favour of the maxim of preventing u man from
nating himself. The 'rule was a bad one ; it tended.lf
prevent the uiscovery'of truth, and was frequently nincie';
use of as a mere excuse. But if the party were inden.l.
stifled, 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 10';
Baronet he would say, that he considered intimidati:)ll
crime equal to bribery, and he (Mr. O'Connell) would r.
to any extent with the Iron. Baronet in preventing-
knew ill/
midation. He of one way of preventing
that was by granting the Ballot. He moved that t°
words—" subject to the ordinary rules of evidence,' 136
omitted from the amendment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in the CO4
rt
an
of Chancery it was constantly the practice to ortiori-
issue to be tried, and the Lord Chancellor would s)ru,
the parties in that suit to be examined subject to the
laws of evidence. He could nut consent to permit * •
words to be struck out.
Mr. ESCOTT said that the Hon. Member o,l'
Cockerniouth stated fairly enough that he wished to nc!
away with the rules of evidence in these cases, wbcrciles,.
the Attorney-General wished to examine these witness—
t
according .to the rulbs of evidence, when, accordins
el
the rules of evidence, they ought never to be examin.
at all.
The amendment proposed by the Attorney-Geier
'a
was then put and agreed to.
Other verbal amendthents were agreed to.
On the question that the. clause as amended stand I'°4
of the Bill.
.AGLIONBY said that from the conciliator)"
spirit evinced by the Hon. Gentleman who had elle%
of the Bill in admitting the amendments proposed, I'd,
(Mr. A's.) interest in the Bill was considerably lessene
He would recommend to the Noble Lord who had intNi
duced the Bill to cut the Gordian knot at once, and
ne
session bring in a Bill for the Extension of the Franey''

and Vote by- Ballot.
Mr. C. BULLER denied that he had admitted all
alterations in the Bill but one, of which those who Pr°
posed it pointed out the necessity. On the 26th clause
he should be as firm as a rock. been
Sir R. INGLIS said that three hours had now f
consumed in what was virtually but the first claus%l:-
the Bill. He put it to the House if there was a Frstition
able prospect of bringing.the subject to a
this session, and if there was nut they she
waste the public time. t had been
Sir IL PEEL observed in reference to v,"
rii , that the
said relative to compromise, as bein,,,,r C- .131 e-the pro-
fact of compromises acting as impediinents
sufficient
secution of inquiry into alleged bribery, formed .1
ground for the introduction of that subject in ti e
%%rah respect to the value of public time, no one cell!°.
be more sensible of it than he : but it was not lost ill
ultedritioint thus
discussing a measure, which would have the most bend"
vial results in the casesoof elections occurring during the
recess. He knew of no better tribunal than that sag"
gusted by the present Bill, fur the purpose of defeat'
in: compromises.
Mr. I)ARBY said that, after this session, there would
be very little in the way of compromise resorted to.
fle-
believed that this Bill would do more to prevent babel,
than any other measure which had been enacted '`
the subject.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
The third clause was agreed to, with some araendule
,nts.
proposed by the Solicitor-General.
Clause 4 was agreed to without discussion.

.'n clause 5 being put,
Mr. DARBY opposed it. He objected to the po'ver
gave to sins-political partisan to present a petition imeae
diately after the heat of a contested election,
checked, which petitions were to be prosecuted at tt°'
public expense.
Mr. BULLER could not admit the objection. ii
election petitions were liable to the same charge, anu„i•
was met by compelling the parties to enter into recog,::f
' zances and saddling them with the expenses if t'
turned out frivolous. almost 0.11:
After some observations from Mr. Darby, Mr. liqral'
and Mr. Henley,
Mr. ESCOTT thought' if the clause passed therae,
would be no end to the presentation of petitions fr°
malicious motives d art site.
Strangers werean thenp ory derped to withdraw, and the
Committee divided, when there appeared
For the clause
Against it
Majority in favour of the clause -47 •
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 6 was agreed to without any amendment.
On clause 7, with respect to the amount of Vim;
ninuces, being put,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that the
recognizanees in certain cases should be increased fr°
1001. to 2501., and in others from 2001. to 500/.
Sir R. PEEL thought the suggestion worthy of c°l3.
sidcration, and one that ought to be adopted.
The clause, as proposed to be amended, was theo
agreed to.
Clauses up to 13 were agreed to without any at-ac-
meats.
Clause 14 having been put, the
Mr. O'CONNELL objected to the proposal in
clause of constituting a Commission of Inquiry ecr;
posed of Members of _both, Houses, in the case c"'l,o
borough suspected of bribery. He should divide,. t"
House against the clause. - . Iselited

Mr. IIAWES thought that if the House cons, of
to the appointment of a Commission composed 0/1
Members of both liouses, . they would be yielding
their own privileges.
Mr. ESCOTT also objected to the. clause. 44 a,'
Mr. AGLIONBY stated that she object of aPpoi.,--,,ef
a mixed Commission was, to facilitate the adopatul 0,
any measures which it might be thought advisable's,
t
take against a delinquent borough. No Bill for dish ° ,
chising a constituency could be passed without - •
sanction of the other House; and it was felt. tha,l-,:'
sanction could be more easily obtained, if Peers well' 1;
lowed to be members of the Commission. He thowl„- •
that that consideration was sufficient to justify the rr''
posal in question. _ •ht
Mr. MACKINNON: oppOsed the clause. He thotig
that the powers of both Houses should be kept distitObe%
Mr. ROEBUCK hoped the clause would 1104,f-a
pressed. .11e should feel great repugnance in voting, its
proposal that that House should devolve any 01,t
powers to the other House. He entreated the Houma -01
to decide . hastily on such a subject- Let them sulcoo
theirjudgment for the present ; and let Ministers prel', ~
a well-considered measure to settle the whole. (141:fs
in the next session. He believed that those tribo.o,
to which the House now left the decision of election ve'..v
Lions were inefficient ; and be did not think that tril
inefficiency would be remedied by the calling in bees
number of Members of the other House. -.die Morri ,
y Il of the other House were as liable to be biassed batoi
considerations, as they were themselves. His wish w°, ,c.,
be, that they should commit the power of deciding -e't
tion petitions to one or two high Judicial functionarie:,
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that he coincided in e '_'-;',
north that had fallen from the Hon. end Learned INlc',,,
.her fur Bath. In his opinion it would be advisablehey
transfer to an external authority that power which ti ,c.
had 'Atha rto reserved to themselves with respect to e.:th
tion petitions. If the Hon. Gentleman proceeded ‘lllO
the clause he should propose as an amendment that_ ."0.,
Commission should consist of three Judges of the b'tl,
rier courts of law.
Sir R. PEEL felt an objection in principle to s'yeit't,
course. It could nut be said that he was not anxir',,
maintain the privileges of the House of Common7.ot
(Bear)—but the disfranchisement of a boroughwiLi,,,
a matter relating to the special privileges of
of Commons, but was at subject
ence ; and they could nut the 11(,:',".....
the concurrence of the House of Lords. They 10011_,,j
right to determine the issuing of the writ, but they , tu_r
concurrence o,
not disfranchise a borough without the qle,
the other House of Parliament, and'therefore when 1 f,
the es,
prtni,etilltra ltgigttsitte•epiiTici.9..ll,,,e;ot
called in the aid of the House of Lords in cr'a'p
dun of tie Commission, it seemed to him they, sciellireit'sitiorn.
rendering no rights. The object of the
rt''Snuch facts
was that they should have power to discover
guiltY
as would enable both Houses to disfranchise'
~,.,, Inf.„
bortughs without acv further ine.ti:;yi; r--
'l'.g.A.lagPh‘t)iiiittmwc.onttildGl -bet‘ (Hb''enittorlidis:ountakeyt tite
Crow
'711114 -41b11: