The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH GO, 1863,

order to ascertain what quantity of moisture it contained.
The hon. member (Mr. Ayrton) would probably take up the
cudgels for Mr. Lloyd, who was one of his constituents;
but this view was so diametrically opposed to the senti-
ments of importers and manufacturers that he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) could only condole with the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets with regard to the errors of
those whose organ—a most able and zealcus one he ad-
mitted—he was. The hon. member for the City had ex-
pressed a hope that nothing of the sort would take place,
inasmuch as the proposition would have the effect of bar-
ring of a trade that was special and indirect, and had for
its aim a sort of evasion of duty. He (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer), acting upon the representations of some
gentlemen from Liverpool, had inserted in the bill a few
words, making provision, in the first clause, that no tobacco
which, when imported into this country, was packed or
prized in the usual manner, should be subject to testing for
moisture, unless by the special order of the Board of Cus-
toms. These were the only changes, beyond mere verbal
alterations, which he proposed to make in the bill.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE wished to ask, with reference to
the first clause, whether there was to be a limit to the draw-
back on stalks. He understood it was to be limited to those
stalks only which were used in the manufacture of snuff.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the intention had never been to allow a drawback upon
stalks, for reasons connected with the revenue laws. As his
hon. friend was probably aware, the importation of stalks
was prohibited, except where they were cut up in the regu-
lar process of making what was called birds'• .eye tobacco.
Mr. AYRTON said he wished to correct one error into
which the right hon. gentleman had fallen, The right hon.
gentleman had said that the trade was in favour of discri-
minating duties. Tho fact was, that the trade did not wish
for discriminating duties, but they said, that if they were to
have them, trey preferred to have them more reasonable
than they were in the bill ; and that they should not pro-
ceed by jumps of 10 per cent., but by steps of 5 per cent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply,
read a letter from Mr. Charles Lloyd recommending aclear-
ance of moist tobacco.

Mr. AYRTON pointed out that the letter contained some
qualifying expressions.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no doubt the hon. gentleman was entitled to the benefit of the
whole of the contents of the letter. The ca,e of cigars must
be considered as one involving various features, because
cigars NI ere made front tobacco coming from different quar-
ters. He would illustrate the case of cigars by two exam-
ples—one of average tobacco made into cigars, the other an
extreme case with a view of testing the proposition of a ss.
duty. He held that it was not the duty of Parliament to
undertake to cover every extreme instance in every minute
',unification of trade. But in the present instance he did
not hesitate to say that his proposal covered every case that
had been brought within his knowledge, and every case
that he believed existed in the ordinary course of trade
and it they had known as much before his proposal was
made as they knew now, he did not think he should be jus-
tified in proposing so high a discriminating duty as ss. on
the foreign article. Now with regard to the example of
cigars made from tobacco of ordinary quality, including
Havannah of a somewhat dry kind, Yarra, German, and
Dutch tobacco, he would assume, for the purpose of calcu-
lation, an importation of 1001bs. of tobacco. He would first
calculate the duty directly paid by the manufacturer on
that 1001bs., next any direct charges entailed upon him, and
then he would put down, on the other side, any set-offs
that might be made. He would take the number of pounds
of cigars which the manufacturer could make out of 1001bs
of tobacco and divide the total amount of duty paid, di-
rectly or indirectly, by the number of pounds of cigars
made out of the 1001bs. of tobacco, and that would give the
amount of countervailing duty. Now 1001bs. of Havannah
leaf, of a somewhat dry quality, yielded 171bs, of stalks,
which, though not worth anything for entering into cigars,
would sell for 2s 4d a pound in the market. There would
be 141bs of refuse and moisture from such an amount of this
tobacco. Deducting 171bs of stalk and 141bs of refuse, or
311bs from 1001bs, there would remain 691bs of cigars to be
got from 1001bs of tobacco. Now, the duty paid, including
the allowance for interest during the process of manufac-
ture, was £l6 is 9d. Deducting from that the sum of £1
19s Bd, the value of 171bs of stalks, there remained £l4 2s
id. Dividing this by 691bs of cigars, it would he found to
represent a payment in duty of something like 4s ld per lb
He proposed to allow ss, in order that the labourers who
were employed in the manufacture, amongst whom were
women and children, might be well looked after. His real
difficulty, therefore, was not to defend the 5s duty against
those gentlemen who thought it ought to be increased, but
against those who considered it ought to be diminished. He
would now take the extreme example of Havannah tobacco
which might be stated to contain about 23 per cent, of mois-
ture, and therefore a case most unfavourable for his purpose
He had heard of cases of 24 and 25 per cent, of moisture,
but no case of that kind had been strictly verified. The
hon. member asked what was moisture. He did not know
whether the house was capable of appreciating the process
by which the moisture of any given article was ascertained,
but there was, or used to be, at the Kensington Museum, a
very interesting vessel which represented the constituent
elements of the human body, and as faros he recollected
out of 150 or 160 parts there were 110 parts of moisture.
(An Hon. Member : Oh I More than that.) He hoped the
hon. member- would take up the moisture question on his
behalf. But at all events the amount of moisture could be
ascertained by chemical analysis. Allowing then 23 per
cent for moisture and a corresponding amount of stalks the
case would stand thus :-1001bs of Havannah leaf of the
wettest description contained 231bs of moisture, 181bs of
stalks, and 21bs of refuse smalls and waste. It followed that
there were 431bs to be deducted from the 1001bs, which left
571bs of cigars to be got out of the 1001bs. But when the
181bs of stalks sold for 2s 4d the lb, and making the calcu-
lation and allowances as before, the result showed that the
duty which the manufacturer paid on 571bs of cigars was
£l3 19s 9d, or 4s 103/4d, or say in round numbers, 4s 111 b
per lb. Perhaps it would be said this was running it rather
close, and that remark would be true but for ono element in
the calculation, which he had not yet presented to the
house. In the calculations made he assumed that the cigars
were perfectly dry, but the ordinary state of foreign cigars
imported into this country was that they contained 163/4
per cent, moisture; and British cigars, made from Havan-
nah leaf, contained 151 per cent. of moisture. The conse-
quence was that the duty of 5s gave the home manufac-
turer the whole advantage of 151 per cent, of moisture in
every 100 lb of tobacco. The hon. member made himself
the mouthpiece of persons who stated that one good and
profitable mode of making cigars was to take tobacco of a
certain description, and to reduce it one-half its weight, and
the inference he deduced from this was that the British
manufacturer ought not to be precluded from adopting the
mode of manufacture ho thought best, and that he was en-
titled to a countervailing duty of 6s 4d, or twice 3s 2d—the
amount of duty. Now it was quite true that tobacco might
be reduced, like many other things, to one-half its weight.
Put paper in the fire, or roast meat to a coal, and they would
be reduced to more than half their weight. But would the
hon.gentleman rise in his place that night and tell him that it
was a good mode of making cigars to reduce tobacco to half its
weight? By following that process there would be left nothing
but a woody fibre, and the cigars would have lost every quality
which would make any person put them into the mouth.
He believed that not only an ample but liberal allowance
was made by the 5s duty which he proposed.
Mr, AYRTON said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
made certain statements which he had no doubt werein the
main correct, for they were arithmetical calculations based
on certain given quantities of tobacco. He had also calcu-
lations made by Cope Brothers and Co., of Liverpool, and
based on very much the same quantities as the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had given, from which it resulted that out
of 100 lb of tobacco there would remain 491 b of leaf, and that
the duty ought to be 5s 7d, and not 4s ld, as the right hon.
gentleman had calculated. But independently of this there
were many incidental points to be brought intc the account
as between the manufacturer in England and the manufac-
turer abroad which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
not taken into calculation. For instance, the duty on foreign
cigars at present was Os a pound. That was a prohibition,
except as regarded the slave-made cigars of Cuba, and the
cigars of the royal monopoly at Manilla. The Havannah
manufacturer had so completely the control of the market,
that if the dealer in this country chose to purchase one box
of the best, he was compelled to buy also one box of the
second-best and one box of the worst. Now this was an im-
portant incident, because if the English manufacturer could
only sell the first quality at a profit and the inferior qualities
at a loss, the amount of duty became a large figure. The
longer a cigar was kept the less moisture it contained, and
the more valuable it became. Tho foreigner would be able
to keep his cigar in bond, and the less moisture it contained
the better it would be for him, as he only paid duty upon
the weight, whereas in the case of the English manufacturer
the more the loss of moisture the greater the loss to him,
because he had paid duty upon the moisture. He must charge
a higher price on the residue, in order to cover that loss.
The more the value:of the commodity rose to the foreigner,
the greater was the relative loss to the English manufacturer.
These were serious elements, because when they came to
close competition they had to be taken into account. With
regard to the process of steeping, what he said was that in
an extreme case it could be shown that tobacco lost half its
value, and he contended that in a question of duties and
equivalents they must have regard to extreme cases, and
for this reason—that if a man had a commodity, though it
were a woody fibre it was still a fibre of tobacco wood, that
could be used to mix for the purpose of keeping up the bulk,
and at the same time of diminishing the weight of cigars.
They had positive experience with regard to the steeping
process in the class of cigars known as Swiss or Vevay
cigars. These cigars were imported, an'l could pay a duty
of 9s. They were made of steeped tobacco, and when
weighed against tobacco of the same sort manufactured in
this country, it turned out that there were 240 cigars in the
pound of those imported, and only 120 in the pound of
those made in this country. The Chancellor of the E-
xchequer said this was an extravagant case, but it was still a
case of business actually going on, and such was the gain to
the continental manufacturer resulting from this process of
steeping, that he could actually make his cigars pay a 9s.
duty and yet exhibit them for sale. Nevertheless, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a ss. duty was suffi-
cient. That was an important question, for this reason,
that having established a prohibitory duty except as re-
garded Ilwramith Dad Manilla Wore, it had been, the in-

terest of the manufacturer to keep up his weight, because
upon his weight he had paid duty, and there being no such
obligation on the foreigner, he could retain the specific
gravity as much as possible, and get the largest bulk for the
smallest amount of duty, and if the foreigner could do this
to an enormous extent in one class of cigars—the Vevay
cigars—•what would the industry of Germany do when it
came to treat tobacco under the new regulations ? Why,
every class of tobacco would be subject, to a greater or leas
extent, to this stepping process, and the English manufac-
turer would be driven out of the market. The gain to the
foreigner would be enormous. In the first place, he could
use a coarse tobacco which the English manufacturer could
not use because it was too coarse, and he gained 4d. per lb.
on the mere value or cost price of the tobacco. That was a
subject which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to
consider. When they dealt with revenue they were bound
to regard extreme cases as they might turn the scale
of the market. Now he asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to put a clause in his bill which would place the
English manufacturer on exactly the same footing as the
foreigner as to the steeping of tobacco in fond. If he would
do that he would admit he was dealing with his argument
in a practical way. The right hon, gentleman had not dealt
with another question inseparably connected with this, for
which he was bound to make provision. The English ma-
nufacturer was obliged to buy his tobacco with the stem in
it. for which he paid ditty, but the foreigner took out the
stem before he paid any duty. On what principle could
that be justified ? He would ask the right hon. gentleman
to allow the tobacco to Le stemmed in bond, and thus place
the English manufacturer in the same position as the fo-
reigner. He wanted to hear upon what principle it was that
the manufacturer in this country was not allowed to export
his cigars. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer
that on the principle of free trade. The English manufac
turer was compelled to take in his tobacco and make his
cigars, and yet was not allowed to send them out unless he
paid as much duty as amounted to a positive prohibition.
Facility for exporting cigars would be the greatest possible
relief to the English manufacturer, because he could sell
fine cigars to gentlemen of fortune in England, and send
out the coarser qualities to the people in the colonies, who
were not so nice.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
hon. gentleman had indulged in vague statements, and had
been very shy of matters of fact and computation. The
extreme case which he had put of particular kinds of to-
bacco being reduced 50 per cent. by steeping did not exist,
and were impossible. It was not in the nature of the tobacco
that it should exist. A good merchantable cigar could not
be made in that way. As to the inquiry whether he would
include a clause in the bill for steeping in bond, he had to
state that having seen the hon. gentleman's constituents
and other manufacturers of cigars in Liverpool, Ireland, and
Scotland, no one of them had ever made the slightest refe-
rence to the subject. With regard to the Vevay cigars,
they were told that by some wonderful hocus-pocus the
Swiss made 250 cigars out of a pound of tobacco, and the
English manufacturer only 120. He should think that in
England, if they knew how to bisect them, they could make
nearly 250. These Swiss cigars had been analysed, and in-
stead of having 50 parts extracted, as the hon. member's
constituents represented, they had only 20, and 80 parts of
the old plant remained. With respect to the clause sug-
gested as to steeping, if it was a matter of general interest
to the trade it might form a fair subject for consideration,
bet it had never been brought before the Government, and
he could not possibly be expected to give any pledge on the
subject at the present moment. The hon. gentleman stated
that there was no allowance for stalks in bond. That was to
be considered:in two points of view ; and when they cams to
a question of drawback he would give an answer. He would
not enter upon it now as it bad no connexion whatever with
cigars. When it was said they did not permit cigars to be
exported, he answered that they did ; for what had he done?
The importer brought 1001bs. of leaf into this country, and
in the manufacture he took out a certain quantity of stalks
and a small amount of absolute waste. He had to pay 3s
and 5 per cent., and they gave him back 3s 3d on every lb
of cigars and on every lb of stalks manufactured in this
country. That was as fair and sufficient a drawback on manu-
factured tobacco in general as could be calculated, but at
the same time he frankly admitted that it was not possible
to so construct a system of drawback as to cover everything
which might be quoted in an extreme case. He certainly
would hope that the export of cigars would be a profitable
business, and that a great stride would be given to it by
the new enactments, as compared with the present state of
the law. The quotation of the hon. gentleman from Mr.
Cope was perfectly fallacious. In that statement, it ap-
peared that 491 lbs of cigars were the proceeds of 100 lbs
of Havannah leaf. He wanted to ask the hon. member
whether these 491 lbs were dry or not; was all the moisture
taken out of them ?
Mr. AYRT ON—Dry cigars.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said "dry"
was a relative term. Did Mr. Cope mean that the moisture
had been taken out of the tobacco ?

Mr. AYRTON—Mr. Cope meant 49/ lbs of marketable
cigars.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if it
was 49/ lbs of marketable cigars, his answer was that the
computation was wholly fallacious, because it was made on
the extravagant supposition, which never happened, that
the whole moisture had been taken out of the cigars, whereas
in marketable cigars, from Havannah, there was 15i per
cent. of moisture. Thus came to grief the calculation of
Mr. Cope and his hon. friend.

Colonel DUNNE inquired what concessions had been
made to the Irish manufacturers of tobacco, who now ap-
peared to bo satisfied with the bill. He should also wish to
be informed whether it was intended that bonded ware-
houses should be established in small towns, as well as in
cities and seaports.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that,
after hearing the representations made by the Irish manu-
facturers, and consulting the officers of the revenue depart-
ment, he had determined to propose an augmentation of the
duty on sweetened cavendish tobacco. The use ofany foreign
element except water was prohibited in the manufacture of
tobacco. There had however grown up in the country a
taste for a particular kind of sweetened tobacco, and there
arose the question whether it was wise to allow that taste to
be supplied in the irregular manner in whioh it was sup-
plied at present, through the medium of the smuggler, or
to permit a general sweetening of all descriptions of tobacco.
The difficulty was—if such was not allowed—to defend the
ordinary manufacturer of tobacco from being supplanted in
the market by the vendor of sweetened cavendish. One
great object of the bill was to make a bona fide and strong
endeavour to limit as much as possible the trade of the
smuggler. He did not, therefore, come to the conclusion
that cavendish ought to be put under a prohibition, because
the effect of so doing would be to facilitate smuggling.
Neither did he think that the use of sweetening matter
generally could be permitted ; but he considered that the
demand of the Irish manufacturers was not altogether un-
reasonable—namely, that sweetened cavendish should be
kept a good deal dearer in the market than the ordinary
tobacco. He believed that the course he had taken was not
calculated to interfere with the efficacy of the bill. With
reference to the other branch of the hon. and gallant gen-
tleman's question, there was no objection to the establish-
ment of bonded warehouses in small towns, provided the
premises to be proposed were found suitable, and that there
existed the necessary facilities for inspection.
Mr. AYRTON thought that the rate of duty upon the
importation of high-dried cigars should be increased.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
if it was desirable that a distinction should be made be-
tween the duties on high and low dried cigars, he thought
the duty on the latter should be lessened rather than that
on the former increased.

The clause as amended was then agreed to.
In reply to Sir S. NORTIICOTE,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
his intention that the bill should be reprinted, and a further
opportunity given for a consideration of its provisions.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and a new clause,
extending the provisions of the present law in regard to
drawback, was added to the bill, which was ordered to be
reported on Monday next. The house resumed.
THE CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS

exception from the operation of the clause of persons in the
position of members or who had been candidates.
Sir G. G itEY said he regretted the hon. member had not
given notice of his amendment. It involved an important
principle, and at present he could not support it. The ex-
emption of members he thought would be mostinvidious.
Mr. BUTT said with his present feeling he should be pre-
pared to support the proviso. It was said that the member
would be protected from penal consequences, but how could
that be sai if in consequence of his evidence they unseated
him ? He suggested that the proviso should be withdrawn
now, and proposed again on bringing up the report.
Sir F. KELLY agreed with the right hon. baronet that
it would have a strange appearance if they were to exempt
members of the house from the liability to be examined.
But independently of that, it appeared to him that the pro-
viso would be almost nugatory.
Mr. COLLINS concurred in the suggestion that the pro-
viso should be withdrawn, and brought up again on the
report.

Mr. Sergeant PIGOTT thought that the proviso ought to
run in the opposite direction, and that instead of a member
not being called upon to answer a question he should be
compelled to answer.

Mr. CHILDERS said there was another reason for with-
drawing the clause, and that was that it placed the elected
in a better position than the elector, who was compelled to
answer, and, who, if he were proved guilty of bribery or
being bribed, was liable to be struck off the register.
Mr. LYGON also urged the withdrawal of the clause.
Mr. DENMAN said he thought .he hon. member ought
not only to withdraw the clause, but never to introduce it
again. If such a proviso were to be introduced into the bill
the country would never believe they were in earnest, as he
believed they'were, in their endeavdurs to put down bribery.
Mr. HUNT then withdrew the proviso, but said he
should propose it again in a future stage of the bill.
Clause 8 was then agreed to.
On clause 9,
Mr. LYGON proposed to leave out the paragraph relat-
ing to treating.
Sir G. GREY supported the clause as it stood. There
might be a small amount of treating, but there might be
extensive treating. The committee were unanimously of
opinion that the proof of agency with rega-al to treating
should be placed on the same footing as the proof of agency
with regard to bribery.

Mr. LYG ON observed that a bribe was a bribe, and when
once given and taken there was no doubt of the character of
it; but it was a question whether giving a glass of beer was
treating. He thought they ought not to take evidence of
treating until they had established the connection between
the sitting member and the acts complained of.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL said it appeared to him
that if this recommendation of the committee became part
of the act, it would be still in the discretion of the commit-
tee either to receive evidence of acts of treating indepen-
dent of the existence of agency, or if the nature of the case
were such as the hon. member suggested might occur, they
would not receive evidence till the agency was proved.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.

In clause 11,
Mr. COLLINS moved an amendment to prevent the
House of Commons alone from having power to suspend a
writ.

Sir G. GREY said the object of the clause was exactly
to do that which the hon. gentleman desired.
Mr. LYGON had always voted against the suspension of
writs ; for he could never understand why innocent voters
should be deprived of their rights because a number of other
electors had been guilty of malpractices. It seemed to him
that the clause unduly restricted the prerogative of the
crown, and he should therefore support the omission of the
clause altogether. (Hear.)
Mr. Serg. PIGOTT supported the clause.
Sir F. KELLY thought the house ought not to call in
the House of Lords to support it in the exercise of its privi-
leges. (Hear.) He should support the omission of the clause.
Mr. CLAY would be glad to know if the clause super-
seded the ordinary parliamentary power which the house
possessed of suspending a writ.

Sir G. GREY said the bill contained an express provi-
sion that it should not affect the rights of the house during
the continuance of the Parliament which might happen to
be in existence, It only gave power to suspend a writ for
five years absolutely, even though the house should not
continue in being so long.
Mr. COLLINS withdrew his amendment.

Mr. POWELL moved the omission of the clause, with a
view to substitute a new one, disfranchising for 10 years all
persons reported guilty of malpractices. The object of the
law was to purify the constituency. and obviously the best
way of doing that was to excise all its corrupt elements.
He thought the clause as it originally stood would be in-
operative.

Mr, KNIGHTLEY thought the fact of suspending the
writ for five years was a perfect farce, and he was strongly
of opinion that when notorious corruption had taken place
the place should be disfranchised altogether.
Sir G. GREY said the clause was intended to meet cases
in which, although corrupt practices existed, the majority
of the constituents were not guilty of bribery. He believed
it would on the whole be beneficial in checking bribery and
corruption in places where it had hitherto prevailed.
Mr. HARDY thought that in fixing a limit of five years
the coinwittee had not gone too far.

Mr, HENLEY was not aware of any precedent for giving
a resolution of that house the power of law after the exist-
ence of the Parliament which made such resolution had
terminated.

Sir G. GREY said the house had at present the power of
suspending a writ from time to time during the existence of
Parliament. The only object of the clause was to ask for
legislative sanction for the suspension of a writ beyond the
dissolution of Parliament.

Mr. LYO ON objected to this power being assumed by
the house. He should cordially give his support to the hon.
member for Gloucester.

Sir F. KELLY also objected to the clause. The ground
on which he must resist the clause was that, although it
was expedient that a Parliament should have the power of
suspending a writ during its continuance, he did not under-
stand why, for the offences of a small portion of a constitu-
ency, the House of Commons should have the power of en-
croaching on the prerogative of the Crown, and disfranchis-
ing perhaps a very meritorious portion of the constituency
for a longer period than the existence of Parliament.
Mr. HUNT wished to point out that this section gave a
much greater power to the House of Commons than it at
present possessed. The working of the clause might be to
suspend a writ for two sessions of Parliament.

Mi. BENTINCK said that the right hon. gentleman had
not answered the question whether the effect of the clause
would not be to enable one session of Parliament to suspend
a writ during part of a subsequent session.
Sir G. GREY said that clearly the effect of the clause
would be that the suspension might extend over a future
Parliament. The writ would be suspended, not by the ac-
tion of the House of Commons, but by virtue of an act of
Parliament.

Mr. WALPOLE said he was in favour of the clause, and
he thought it would be an improvement in the law. He
thought that the five years might well run over a dissolution,
and the constituency would be warned that if their evil prac-
tices were continued they would be disfranchised altogether.
Still he was of opinion that the clause required guarding, as
he thought the Secretary of State would see from attention
to two considerations. First, this suspension might be
effected simply by a resolution of the house, and there was
no guard against the resolution being taken at a distant
period of a sitting of Parliament ; and he thought that in
all cases the resolution ought to be moved within one month
after the date of the report of the committee. Secondly, the
resolution ought to be passed in a committee of the whole
house, and for this reason, that the house might not be taken
by surprise. The report of the committee would then be
laid on the table, and the house would have an opportunity
of confirming or of rescinding it. The right hon. gentle-
man proposed amendments in the wording of the clause to
meet these views.

Sir E. COLEBROOKE suggested that the right hon.
baronet (Sir G. Giey) should give some assurance that the
house should not be taken by surprise. If some such guaran-
tee were given, ho should be disposed to Tote in favour of
the clause.

Mr. HARDY suggested the substitution of five years
"from the date of the report," for five years "from the date
of the resolution."

In answer to Mr. PEACOCKE,

Sir G. GREY said that the five years might possibly run
over the termination of a Parliament. He agreed in the ne-
cessity of some such guard as that suggested by the right
hon. gentleman (Mr. Walpole). But the clause could not
now be amended ; and before it was brought up on the re-
port he (Sir G. Grey) would consider the question, and pro-
pose some alteration which would meet the suggestions
that had been thrown put.

Mr. HENLEY said he was sure, from the discussion that
had taken place, that there was some danger in the clause.
His right hon. friend (Mr. Walpole) had suggested a period
of one month from the passing of a report. But they all
knew that reports were often great jolly blue books—(a
laugh)—and he scarcely thought there would be time for
hon. members in all cases to digest the report that might be
issued. There was danger also that this clause might be
passed into an assumption by the house of powers which
did not constitutionally belong to it,
Mr. POWELL intimated that he would take the sense of
the committee on the clause.
Sir J. SHELLEY asked by whom the writ would be
issued if the five years happened to expire when the house
was not sitting.
Sir G. GREY said by the authority of Parliament.
Mr. PEACOCKE said he scarcely thought it was the
intention of the right hon. baronet to suspend the enfran-
chisement of a borough over a dissolution, and during part
of a future session.

Sir G. GREY said that that was the intention—(hear)—
if it should be necessary. The object was that a constitu-
ency found guilty of malpractice, should remain unrepre-
sented during the full period of five years. (Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. KNIGHTLEY, the com-
mittee divided and the numbers were—
For the clause
Against

The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 were also agreed to.
Mr. FAME then moved the introduction of a clause to
provide that every cndidate who should, by himself, or by

or with any other person, pay wholly or in part any expense
incurred for meat, drink, entertainment, or provision, for
any person other than an elector, with a view to influencing
the election, on the day of nomination or the day of polling,
should be deemed guilty of the offence of treating, should
forfeit the sum of £5O, and, if an elector, forfeit his right to
vote at the said election.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the clause, on
the ground that it would rather do mischief than good.
The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. PAGET moved the insertion of a clause, the effect
of which would be to render persons who were under a re-
cognisance, or who had been served with a subpoena under
the Act, and who did not appeal, guilty of a contempt of
court.

Mr. HARDY observed that the hon. member desired to
place witnesses in tb.e case of corrupt practices in a worse
position than witnesses in the case of murder. That was
carrying the law a little too far,
The clause was negatived without a division ; as was also
a second clause, proposed likewise by Mr. Paget, the object
of which was to empower a judge of a superior court to order
any person charged with any offence against the law for the
prevention of corrupt practices to be tried in a eounty diffe-
rent from that in which the offence was committed, or in
the Central Criminal Court.

Mr. PULLER moved the insertion of a clause rendering
any person convicted of bribery,treating, or undue influence
by a court of law incapable of being elected or sitting in
Parliament during the five years next after such conviction.
At present a person so convicted might be forthwith elected
by any place other than that at which he had been guilty
of the bribery.
Fir G. GREY had no objection to the clause, the convic-
tion being that of a court of law.
The clause was agreed to.

Sir F. GOLDSMID proposed the insertion of a clause
rendering null all votes given for a candidate guilty of
bribery. At present, if a candidate proved bribery
against his successful opponent, he must re-con-
test the seat, even though no recriminating charge had been
proved against himself. The change which he proposed to
introduce into the law was to give the seat to such a candi-
date under such circumstances, and he believed that it would
be most successful in checking bribery. He would ask the
committee to consider how the change in the law
which he proposed would operate upon political
parties and candidates. The candidate, instead of
acting as he did at present, would know that, whether
he was the candidate of a strong or a weak party,
if he bribed he would lose his seat. (Divide.) Ho hoped the
commi tee would allow him to notice the only objection he
had heard raised to the clause he proposed, which was that
they could not give the seat to the minority; but that ob-
jection arose from trusting to words without observing their
meaning. What was meant by a majority was a majority of
those who had real political opinions, but not a majority
obtained by means of funds. His clause would give the
election to the real majority.

Sir G. GREY said this was not the first time his hon.
friend had brought forward such a resolution, nor the first
time he had to state his objection to it. The law as it now
stood was founded upon the plain and obvious principle
that no votes should be thrown away unlesstheelector knew
that the candidate was at the time disqualified from taking
his seat in that house. As the clauae would be unjust to the
constituencies, and be a departure from the recognised prin-
ciple of law, he should oppose it.
The clause was then negatived without a division.

Mr. HUNT moved a clause to the effect that, whenever
an election committee resolved unanimously that the sitting
member was duly elected, and reported such resolution to
the house, the parties who appeared in opposition to such
petition should be entitled to recover their full costs.
Sir G. GREY said there might be many cases where a
petition would be presented in pertect good faith, but, from
circumstances which the petitioners knew nothing of, the
petition might fail, and he thought it would be hard they
should be made to pay the expenses. The effect of the clause
would be to discourage election petitions. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Dr. Brady, Mr. Clay, Mr. Bou-
verie, and Mr. Sclater-Booth, the clause was withdrawn.
Mr. HUNT moved another clause, to the effect that
when a commission was issued to inquire into the extensive
prevalence of bribery, treating, or corrupt practices, and
when such commission reported that such practices pre-
vailed, the town, borough, or other place where the offence
was committed should become chargeable with the expense.
The clause was agreed to.
Mr. D, GRIFFITH moved the insertion of a clause pro-
viding that the payment of any money or valuable conside-
ration which was stated to be not lawful to pay in respect
of the travelling expenses of any voter at an election, should
be deemed to constitute the offence of bribery on the part of
the candidate or his agent.

Sir G. GREY said the bill studiously avoided dealing
with travelling expenses. The law was in a satisfactory
state upon the subject, and he thought the committee had
batter let it remain so.

The clause was negatived without a division.
Mr. CHILDERS moved a clause that, whenever an elec-
tion committee should have reported to the house that a
member had not been duly elected by reason of bribery
committed by him or by his agents, or that corrupt practices
had extensively prevailed at any election, that thereafter
certain provisions should be adopted, with a view to prevent
their repetition and ensure purity of election. The principal
provision was as follows :—" At the time of polling, each
elector, having previously answered the questions now by
law permitted to be put to him, and having satisfied the re-
turning officer or deputy returning officer that he is then
and there entitled to vote, shall receive from such officer a
voting paper, duly signed as aforesaid, and shall, in a com-
partment of the polling booth provided for that purpose,
strike out the names of those candidates for whom he does
not intend to vote, and, having folded up the voting paper
in such manner as will conceal the names of the candidates,
and display that of the returning officer written upon the
back, shall, in the presence of the returning ()facer or deputy
returning officer, deposit it in a box prepared for that pur-
pose."

Sir G. GREY opposed the clause.
The committee then divided.
For the clause
Against it
Majority .. —76
_

The preamble was then agreed to, and the bill having
been passed through committee, was ordered to be re-
ported.
The house having resumed, immediately went into com-
mittee on the