The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-15 00:00:00

POSTAGE OF PRINTED -PAPERS.

Mr. M. GIBSON—When will the Secretary of the Trea-
sury lay upon the table of the house the new Treasury mi-
nute he informed us was in course of preparation in refer-
ence to the conveyance of printed papers by the Post•office
—that is, for permitting a larger weight to be carried than
is now allowed ?

Mr. J. WILSON said the minute in question had for its
object merely to make the weight allowed to pass through
the Post-office correspond with the increased dimensions
of newspapers sanctioned under the recent change of the
Newspaper Stamp Act.
BRIBER'S?: BILL.

The house then went into committee on this bill.
Progress was resumed at clause 17, which provides for
the appointment of an officer for auditing election ex-
penses, to be called an election officer.
Mr. V. SCULLY moved as an amendment, to leave
out of clause 17, from and including "provided always,"
in line 26 of page 7, down to and including " election
officer," in line 31 of the same page, with corresponding
alterations in subsequent part of the bill.
Sir J. SHELLEY said this clause applied to the candi-
dates ; and before they went further they ought to define
what a candidate was. Was every person who said he
should be a candidate, but did not go any further, to have
a share in the appointment of the auditor? He thought
that the appointment of the election officer should be made
after the nomination, and he suggested that the words
" previous to" be left out of the clause and the word
" after" inserted.
Sir F. KELLY said that the word " nomination" was
used in the bill in its popular sense, and what was meant
by the candidates were the persons who appeared in that
character at any time before the day of election ; and they
" might" agree among themselves who was to be the
election officer.

Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to take this opportunity of
expressing his views on this important part of the bill. He
believed they owed the notion of an eleCtion officer to his
hon. and learned friend the member for Suffolk, and he
(Sir J. l'akin:ton) thought that the app,,intment of such
an ofti4;p,r, if carried out proppaly, was one of the mot
tow:u.is petting 'Au end to bribery that had
of, been 7ind 1,13?k-efor, the greater should be
the care t,,,ket, with 1.0z.e.A. to the manner in which that
officer was appointed.
Mr. WALPOLE said the select committee considered it
advisable that the candidates should concur in the appoint-
ment of the election officer, and that it was a matter of the
greatest importance that he should be appointed before the
day of nomination, but as the clause stood if the candidates
did not!concur in the appointment the returning officer
could not appoint him till the day of nomination, because
ho could not know till 12 o'clock the night previous that
they would not concur. It was considered by the select
committee that if the candidates did not concur the re-
turning officer was the proper person to make the appoint-
ment. Ho did not think it would be satisfactory, that the
appointment should be by the sheriff. There seemed to
be a misapprehension as to the character of the election
officer. He was not a judicial officer, but a ministerial
officer, whose duty it was to audit and pay the election
bills.

Mr. BRIGHT said it was intended by the select commit-
tae that this officer snould be some reepectablo trustworthy
person who should merely pay the bills with the money
furnished to him by the candidates. There was no necessity
whatever to have a lawyer to do this. The bon. and
learned gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) was in favour of having
barristers. Now, he should like to know if, at a general
election, they were to have 400 barristers thrown loose upon
society. (Laughter.) Besides, the connexion between
lawyers and arithmetic was not a very close one, and
though lawyers might be better able to get in money than
other people, he did not know that they were better
payers. (Laughter.) He did not think that the appoint-
ment of this officer by the sheriff would be at all satis-
factory to the boroughs, and, indeed, he thought it would
be the worst mode of appointment that could be. If the
candidates could not agree the law might be framed in
such a manner that if there was a particle of honesty in
the person appointed there would be no difficulty. The
election officer would not have near as much power to act
in a party spirit as the returning officer bad. He did not
think it made much difference whether the appointment

was made previous to or after the election.
Mr. E. DENISON remarked that if this bill passed the
agent of a candidate could not even pay for his post-horses
that conveyed him from place to place during his canvass,
but such expenses must be paid through the election
office. He thought the election officer ought to be ap-
pointed by the time that the expenses began to be in-

curred.
Mr. WALPOLE said by the interpretation clause "per-
sonal expenses," which might be incurred by a candidate
included travelling expenses to and from the place of elec-
tion. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps those words ought to be a
little extended.
Sir F. KELLY said expenses were necessarily incurred
before the day of election which could not always be on
credit ; and as the payment of ready money would be an
infraction of the act, he thought the appointment ought to
take place previous to the electidn.
Mr. HENLEY thought the committee was placed in a
position of extreme difficulty. Three months ago the bill
was sent to a select committee, and now they found that
they had got this clause, and that all the following clauses
were taken from a bill intended for totally different ma-
chinery. All candidates were to concur in the appoint-
ment of this officer. What was a candidate ? A " candi-
date" was in the first place to mean "all persons elected as
members to serve in Parliament at such election." That
was, of course, clear; but then the definition went on to
include "all other persons who have been, or are about to
be, nominated or proposed as candidates at such election."
But how was a returning officer to know who was about to
be proposed? (" Hear, and laughter.) The hon. member
for Leominster said that a banker's clerk would do as well
for the office as a barrister, his functions being merely
Ministerial. lie (Mr. Henley) thought, however,
i
that his
duties would be about as delicate and difficult as
onoyived, Without his sanction a candidateacould wourd3

[PRICE SD.

not be able to compound an action or suffer it to go by de-
fault. That he thought was a very considerable power to
entrust to any one. (Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said they all knew the
wonderful acumen which the right hon. gentleman always
brought to bear upon the clauses of a bill : but he must
say ho had never known him exercise his powers more con
amore than he had done with respect to the measure now
before the committee. (Hear.) The right hon. gentle-
man, however, would admit that the bill was a most im-
portant one—(Mr. Henley :—" Hear")—and therefore
it was the duty of every member to endeavour to make it
as efficient aa possible. He thought that the effect of a
clause by which it was provided that all payments with. re-
spect to elections should .be made through a responsible
officer, anti that the accounts should afterwards be pub-
lished to the world would be a far better preventative of
corruptionthan any penal clause which they could devise.
(Hear, hear.) At the same time he must freely admit
that the difficulties that stood in the way of the appoint-
ment of this officer by the candidates themselves appeared
to him to be insuperable. (Hear, hear.) 'The objection to
leaving the appointment to the judges or fevising barristers
waerthstrthey could have no local knowledge. It must
therefore be left to the sheriff of the county, or to the re-
turning officer • and of the two ho preferred the latter. It
might be said that returning officers were subject to par-
tiality; but after' all this new duty would be a trivial one
compared with those which they had already to perform ;
and which, in the great majority of cases, they did perform
in a perfectly satisfactory manner. He thought that the
power of deciding whether an action should be compounded
or not was indispensable to prevent collusion. (Hear,
hear. As for the time at which the appointment should
be made, he was of opinion that the election auditor
should be chosen by the returning officer immediately after
his-own appointment. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MASSEY agreed with the right hon. and learned
gentleman, but he doubted whether bribery could be
.pre-
vented by penal enactments.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that it was, at any rate,
worth while -to t the experiment of- the clause.. He
agreed with what n•-from-the Attorney-General,
and he proposed to make the clause run thus :--'4(lTh6
sheriff of every county, and the returning officer of every
city oat borough, shall, immediately after his appointment
appoint an election offieer; to be called `The auditor of
election expenses.'(Hear.)
- Sir F. KELLY--said- he had drawn up a new clause,
which he thought would answer the purpose better than
that of the noble lord. "Once in every year, in the month
of August, the returning officer of every place returning a
member or membeis to serve in Parliament, shall appoirt
an election officer to be called `The auditor of electionmx-
penses,', to aft'at every, election during the year then-neit
ensuing."

Mr. -J. E. DENISOi4 thought the election auditors
should gi9e"SOme security that the funds placed at their
disposal should be forthcoming when required to pay the
electiarr bills:

Sir F. KELLY observed that the money was to be paid
into a bank, and thence drawn out by cheques signed by
the election auditor, countersigned by the candidate.
Mr. GROGAN said if Mr. Massey would move the
emiesiOnicif the clause, he should have his support. (Hear.)
Mr. G. ff. VERNON preferred the appointment of the
election officer by the returning officer immediately after
hie owvi::•• • ThUreturning officer would then be responsible
for his own nominee.
Mr. HILDYARD expressed some alarui lest-the validity
of elections shdrild be endangered by the irregularity of the
election auditor's appointment. He had never seen a bill
in hie-life•whielt laid more trapfalls for candidates than
did this bill, and the committee ought therefore to be
doubly cautious in deciding upon its ”hraseology.
Mr. J. FITZGERALD reminded the hon. and learned
member thait it would be no duty of the candidate to in-
quire into the appointment of the election officer.
Captain. BENTINCK suggested that this election officer
should be a permanent officer, holding his office during
good behaviour.
Mr. BONHAM-CARTER thought the difficulty in this
'matter was to decide • when a man became a candidate.
Very often it was very long beforeb the election took place,
dud allthis time exPenses • uotnbstantiloy incurred. Under these circumstanceswaethoenin
some landmarks, from which the gelectioneyosfficuer should
have
have power to start in authorising the payment of expenses.
--Mr. NE WDEGATE concurred
very much with-what
had fallen from the last speaker, and unless they decided
what should be, and what should not. bo, election expenses,'
there would be no end to disputes anti litigation under
.this bill. Let the committee, then, put some words in
this clause which should clearly and explicitly define what
eleation expenses were. Thu:latter part of this bill was
objectionable; and it seemed to him that, in their anxiety
to guard against bribery, they were exposing members to
penalties and imputations that could have no other effect
than 'seriously to lower the cnaracter of the house in the
estimation of the country. With regard to the appoint-
ment of, the election officer, he thought the responsibility
of the office oughb to rest with the returning officer, and
'not with his nominee. (Hear, hear.)
Sir,,I—PAKINGTON said the discussion had. not re-
moved his objections, and he must therefore persevere in
pressinc, upon the' attention of the committee the views
• which he had propounded in the early part of. this'debate.
The bill gave them no security for the characterAnd'pro-
per .conduct of this election officer, while he was.. yen'
much afraid, if they entrusted his appointment to the re-
turning officer; the Whole matter might end in a local job.
(Hear, hear.) Upon these grounds he did 191 k at the clause
with great suspicion, and he lutist again object to entrust-
ing...ita,psavers to,„ any alerjskwakulaiLat'd the
degree of barriker-at-law, or Who had Efore-440 iATIOi7ue
other equally responsible position. (Hear, heal:)
Lord R. GROSVENOR was verry sorry to add his
voice to the objections which had been raised against
this clause, but it appeared to him that if they
passed it in its present shape, it would be difficult for any
one to decide what the law of election really was.
Mr. BRIGHT believed all parties were agreed upon two
points, viz., to get rid of this scandal on elections, and
that the subject was a difficult one. (Hear, hear.) He
thought all who had voted against the ballot were bound
to agree in the adoption of the most stringent provisions
for the purpose of lessening the evil, and to show that the
ballot was unnecessary.
Mr. HENLEY thought the more the clause was dis-
cussed the greater was the difficulty that presented itself
in reference to it. The hon. member for Manchester had
suggested that those who opposed the ballot should 81•11,-
port this clause but that the ballot would be the most
satisfactory remedy. He differed from the hon. member.
He believed that with the ballot there would bo more
bribery than now, and he did not see, that, as an opponent
of the ballot, he was bound to vote for this clause. The
hon. gentlemen had further said that they would probably
have the opportunity of judging of the effect of this pro-
posal in the elections for the boroughs, which, by the sus-
pension of the writs were now unrepresented ; but he (Mr.
Henley) did not attach much value to that experience.
He believed with the noble lord (Lord Grosvenor) that the
effect of the clause would be to surround the candidate
with traps and pitfalls, and he hoped therefore it would
not be persisted in.

Lord J. RUSSELL reminded those hon. gentlemen who
considered that the effect of this clause would be to sur-
round the candidates with traps and pitfalls, that there
were traps and pitfalls existing as the law now stood.
(Hoar, hear.) Last year they had more than a usual num-
ber of charges of bribery at the previous general election,
and more than the usual number of members were un-
seated on that ground, many of whom he would venture
to say had no intention when they became candidates of
securing their seats by corrupt means. But the position
of th w:3 such enrier thp oxiAing svrtem, that s
eandidAte honestly .ieliriag to cnn6ne hint;eit to the
c\ tied, 05 -month' xl.t'n. I"'
election, tbs.t, unknown to him, Irge. sow, of money had
been ea pendsct on behalf in biibery, sad might lose
his seat in consequence. This way no unusual occurrence,
and he thought it would be a great semi ity, therefore, if,
by any plan like that provided in these clauses, they could
ho sure that all the legal expenses incurred at the election
should be published, and that the person who expended
the money should know that if the published amount were
exceeded, he would not be entitled to recover it from the
candidate. He could not but think that the end to be ob-
tained by this clause was important; viz., that the ex-
penses of elections, which they knew to be now enormous,
should be limited to the strict legal charge ; and he
believed that if candidates and those who were concerned
in elections were to agree to place the accounts of each
election in the hands of an officer appointed for the
purpose, and that those accounts should be pub-
lished, and open to the inspection of every elector, that a
very considerable check would be placed upon corrupt
practices. (Hear, hear.) Whether they called such
officer an election officer or an auditor of election expenses
mattered not, the proposal was the same. But by means of
that person publicity should be given of all the election
accounts, and he could not but consider that the effect of
such publicity would be that the expenses of erlctieeneorne:
much\votl would
ebe
se
objectionablegreatl
been urged that
under this clause many questions of o
frequently were. (Hear.) But it
,hand
d and diminished
rur uap
mt
o tuhl latu, tahnedy nowd too l
arise, and-that, for iustance, it would
thdeidffiifficunlutTt would
sapuld
doubt there were ques ns of
sibility commenced. No
much debate, and if they
where an election began, or where the candidate'sirieespon-
this kind that might require
would not be likely now in the
bill, he admitted theyhe
endeodf,thtoe
were called upon to settle every one of them in the pre-
sentee beginningapprehended,
p r e
the bill in the present ses •
month month
ff
duly,
session
yr,tioarrye,veton ipfsts
—that practical men would
tolerably well when they come
solve those questions
before before
sy
bweeraeblaet,
if it were contended an election them ; and
because he might
com-
mittee that a gentleman,
liberality in have
exhibited
great hospitality and great
hadbefore, done so as a candidate,
and with a view to influence the electors, he thought the
committee would very soon dispose of such au allegation.
(Hear hear.) He 'hoped for the reasons he had stated
that his hon. friend, the chairman of the committee, would
not be a party to the withdrawal of the clause. (Cheers.)
Sir J. SHELLEY remarked that as his objection was to
the appointment of the election officer by the candidate,
and as he underst3od the noble lord was about to move a
proviso to prevent that, the difficulty he had felt in the
matter was removed. He believed the ballot was the only
effectual remedy for bribery at elections, but he felt
bound to unite with those who thought differently when
they proposed a measure they considered would
which
cure the evil.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE proposed that the election
officer should be appointed, not by the returning officer,
but by the revising barrister in England and the assistant
barrister in Ireland.
Mr. G. VERNON thought the returning officer ought to
be the person responsible for the appointment. He hoped
the original suggestion of the noble lord would be adopted.
After. an observation from Sir F. KELLY, suggesting
that the election officer should be appointed annually in
the month of August, some discussion followed on verbal
amendments, which were proposed. At length the clause,
as amended, was put by the chairman.
On the question that it stand part of the bill,
Mr. BENTINCK moved that the clause be omitted. He
said that if such an officer as this could be appointed with-
out the objections which were contained in the clause, he
thought it would be an admirable thing. But before ap-
pointing such an officer two precautions should be taken,
firstly, to ensure that the appointment was placed in such,
hands as to make it certain that a fit and proper. p
temnt
ren
would he appointed, and secondly, before the aPPc"I
of a person who was to have the sole control of all election