The Sun. — 1842-07-28 (London, England)

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 indictments 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 bribery altogether, and to punish those guilty of it, and with that view he should vote for • ,the examination 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 communications. 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 inconvenience 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, Cockermouth, 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 principle, 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 respect to what was done by an agent, gentlemen opposite could not object to that agent.giving evidence. If what he did was by the direction of his client, that altered 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 preserved the pres,mt, nth s of evidence. The