§ MR. J. S. HARDYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether a Candidate declared personally guilty of undue influence is subject to the same penalties and disqualifications as one convicted of personal bribery; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the law in that respect?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALSir, in answering the Question on the part of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, I have to say I have taken an opportunity of looking up the law of the subject. I do not quite understand the purpose of the Question. However, a short inspection of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, which is the governing statute, will show that, except in respect of a difference in the penalties which may be recovered by action from persons supposed to have been guilty of undue influence and from persons supposed to have been guilty of bribery, the law is precisely the same in both cases. A person found guilty of either is guilt}7 of a misdemeanour, and is disqualified from sitting during the existence of the Parliament for the place in respect of which he was convicted; and the only difference is that, whereas actions may be brought against both, and both, on being convicted, must pay penalties, in the case of bribery the penalty 1498 is £100, and in the case of undue influence £50. I am not aware that the law makes any other difference between persons respectively guilty of these offences; and, as to the intentions of the Government, I cannot think that the difference between £100 and £50 is one for which it is at all worth disturbing the present state of the law.