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

Gin

133
• 74
-59

Mr. FITZGERALD said the object of his suggestioa
war to protect the candidate as well as the public.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it would be better to re•
serve the question of a penalty for future consideration,
and not. inclu,le it in the clause.

..., . ~,. „,„.„........... _.
Ni 1 . S. WORTLEY said the clause was surrounded with
"p Much ditiicult.,- that. it would be to postpone it
Pll.o:,y,tilc.r. a 71,,, ,I,llt, iinpoxiible to decide what was or
~b:. t ~ 36 not a a payment incident to the election.
Mi. PlOOlll also thought there was a difficulty in de-
ciding what were election payments. For instance, can-
didates were often called upon to contribute 'towards the
repair of a church or a race fund, and he wanted to know
if those subscriptions were to be taken as payment incident
to the election.
Mr. WALPOLE had no hesitation in, saying decidedly
not.
Mr. HILDYARD contended that all this legislation
were established in a be-
rried on under
was useless, because bribery wdthb6e hcao
the guise of the subscriptions which n. member. had
candidate subscribed 1,000/4 to it, while
the other declined to contribute anything to it, could the
rsougigghes,taedn.d
oSnueppsea coal fund
committee have any doubt in deciding which candidate
would be returned? (Hear, hear.)
Th.. V. SCULLY wanted to say a few words on this
clause. (Cries of "Divide, divide," and "Brotherton,
Brotherton.") Well, if the committee thought the time
Icotite would
stand
that hopedthe 2 thest
clausemn shouldte an
had arrived for reporting progress, he would move that the
chairman should do so accordingly. (Hear, hear.)
OnLo therdJ J.
questionRUSSELL
to dispose of this clause before they reported progret consent
progress.
of the bill,
Lord ' 'R. GLOSVENOR moved that the clause
should
be omitted.
Mr. -WALPOLE gave a history of the clause on its pas-
sage through committee, and expressed his intention to
vote against it if a division was taken.
The committee then divided—
For•the clause l4B
Against it
The house then resumed.

• . •. ~ . • .
• expenses, you were bound in justice tolliebtudidatee'an el -'
/
electors to state what were -and- whet. Wera,nat legithiato
expenses.
Mr. CAIRNS said he tho,uglit it desirable that the'clatise
should be negatived Unless some undeietandibg tviiigiven
that it. would be brought forward in &different form. '
After a feiv•wOrds from Mr. GROGAN and Mr...L. Het'.
WORTH, , .
Mr. Y. SMITH, as 'a member ofthe select committee on
this bill, wished to say that if there wee-one point Ein'whiCh
the committee Nees agreed, it was the appointment: of sin.
election officertd- audit ;So; oxpodies ,of • mecums. Th.
lion. member for BelfastAaid:thts officer had ao died/104n
'or juriridiafoi, and that certainly was felt to be a dtffieulty
an the committee; but thageeet point was the iiotirii&o,
• let election expanses, and he,(Mr, Y. Smith) had.greet faittia
n that plan, and he believed that it would have the great-
est 'effect in deterring perfume froni Aho „,,„,..a.,..,,_ ;th..
',bribery. He thought it the best and ningt';,..:=t2f;
lof the bill. . . e-eLseeak,a4ll,l:4o.
. . ,
,-, -.:-.. u.,, , . __
Sir F. KELLY said several of the °ejections which hoa
been taken to this clause arese not 04:10. A..ileel." ft. bat'
lanthroug-iiblit.te4k-
'on others which followed it, and to w
had not yet come. - This clause provided fora littnolig:
merit of en election officer, to whom, and
all election expenses were to be paid. The evil=
they had to deal with was a most grievous and eno
one ; for in spite of election committees and' other
judicial action, bribery had gone on increasing Watt' It
reached a magnitude which was most, discredia
to the constitution and to the people of this Co
He must remind the committee that the law -Witt '
Ile
regard to what constituted bribery and other iilllol,
practice would not be altered by this bill; and all that the
candidate or his agents would have to do would betetshe
care to pay no money except 'in_ the mitnner provided./
(Cries of " Divide.") The only effect of tins change in the
law would be to prevent the misapplication •of money*
which could not be avoided at present.
After a few words from Mr. MaLrNe and Mr. W. Vin•
LIAMS,
The committee divided—
. For the clause
Against it
Majority
Clause 18 was negatived. ... T T ' , . T r
Clause 19 was agreed to, with some verbal aniendniente:
On clause 20, which .provides that the candidate or hie
agent.shall, within two months of the day of the declara-
tion of the election, or within one month after .the bill hoe
been delivered, send it in to the election officer.' .
Mr.. RILDYARD objected lathe shertness 9f the time,
and moved as an Amendment that the periods. be they
months and two months. .
The amendment was. agreed te. • '
Mr. PlGbrk moved:to altentise
-Penory, MA to 901.; -
. , J
This was reed to, „ - —-,
Loid-J:lt iliemiiise•tUtnik-rott,bew. - ' '-.7;-;:.....-.---.
of 201., imposed bytthewanae clause, be altered to iroszr—
Agreed to. , . ,
The word " wilful" .was oleo inserted before the worst
" default."
In answer to Mr. MASSEY, , ;
Mr. WALPOLE said the committee thought that those
penalties which involved
.disfranehisernent, or the lose of
seat, should be recovered only in a superior court, but that
all the others should be sued for in the county courts.
Mr. MASSEY gave notice that he should move a provise
barring the jurisdiction of county courts in all cases.
• Mr. WALPOLE asked whether under the clause it would
be unlawful to pay bills not sent in within the month.
-Sir F. KELLY said that if. a tradesmen was inadver-
tently to omit sending in a bill, he could certainly not re-
cover it, yet if the bill were a fair •one there could lie no
legal objection to its being paid, lie felt very much die:
posed to support Mr. Massey's proviso. ,
The &also was then agreed to.
On clauiso2l, which enacts that no payments are to by
made except through the, election officer, personal and ad-
vertising expenses excepted, the words "any money what-
ever" were inserted after "claim" inthe first line.
Mr. E. DENISON thought there,ahould be some limi-
tation with regard to time in connexion with current ex-
penses. .
Mr. WALPOLE proposed to strike out the words g• or
in connexion with" in line two, whichwas agreed to.
Mr. J. ELFITZGERALD said th .ee by the operation of
this bill the candidate would be involved in a network of
difficulty out of which it would be impossible sometimes
to escape.
Lora 'SEYMOUR thought that the,:clause should more
clearly define the tribunal before which the prod was to
be made, whether before a court of lew or a committee of
the house. (Hear.)
Mr. HILDYAIID doubted if alp xiection committee
would have jurisdiction if words were net introduced more
clearly defining the tribunal before whtql the proof was to
be taken. It seemed to him that it iiould be necessary to
exclude registrationexpenses under this pi11, because agents
might be bribed indirectly in that way., He believed that
a great number of election petitions would be presented
under the hope of hitting the member trough the opera-
tion of the clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the p ty in the, clause
too severe, and was willing to adopt the Amendnienti pro-
posed by the Ton and learned member for Ennis.
Mr. WALPOLE concurred in the seryView..•
Mr. COBDEN said that by clause 33 the-member was re-
quired to make a declaration on taking his seat to the fol-
lowing effect :—" I, A. 8., do solemnly alicl sincerely de-
clare, without any equivocation or mental reservation.
thus I have not knowingly made, authorisedtor sauctionesl,
and that I will not knowingly make, authapitie, or sanction
any payment on account of my election, other than is al-
lowed by law under the Corrupt Practices Ptevention Act
of 1851." Now, if the member who had' tiken his seat
after that declaration, and who had violated the law was
subjected to a penalty of only 101., it might appear that
they were dealing in a different spirit towards the member,
and towards the electors, whom by prev,ious clauses they
struck off the lists. (Hear.) In assenting to the amend.-
merit they should take care that they were not acting in-
consistently and more =leniently towards theinselves than
towards the electors. .

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE said the object of the amend-
ment was not to avert the consequences of corrupt practies
on the part of the members, but to gnard.against the con•
ssxuence that.would arise if some trifling,payment had not
passed through The hands Sr the eledion •
Mr. NEWDEGA.TE wished to know if it was intended
to assign a limit of time within which this provision wss
to operate.
Mr. H. IVILLOUGHBY said that customs varied. in
different boroughs, and money was often paid, not as bti-
Wry, but because it was customary, as was the case with
respect to chairing expo ises. His right hon. friend (Mr.
Walpole) should append a schedule to the bill defining the
expenses that might be paid and those that might not.
Mr. WALPOLE said it would be impossible to define
beforehand the expenses that would be legal and those that
would not. The payments might not be unlawful inthem-
selves, but the purpose and mode in which they were made
would make them unlawful.
Mr. HENLEY said that in that case it was of the first
importance to define the time and circumstances under
which the payments which were lawful in themselves were
to become unlawful. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. KELLY said, if they were to pass this bill at all,
they must adhere to what were invariably considered
legal expenses ; and the committee having already agreed
to the appointment of an election officer, it was only right
that all expenses which a candidate was put to, whether
ordinary or extraordinary, should be made through him.
Lord R. GROSVENOR viewed this clause with serious
apprehensiou. The object of the bill was to obtain publi.
city, and that publicity being obtained by the appoint-
ment of a public officer, he could not ttnderstand why all
the payments of an election should be made through the
public officer. (Hoar, hear.)
Mr. COBDEN retorted, that if a payment was not made
through the election officer, the assumption might, and
ought to be, that it had been made for an illegal purpose.
There might be reasonable exceptions to that rule, but
until they had determined what these exceptions should
be, they ought either to withdraw the clause or agree to it
Its it stood.