The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-18 00:00:00

THE BRIBERY BILLS, &c.

The house then went into committee on the Bribery
Bills.

Clauses 22 to 25 inclusive were agreed to without com.
ment.
On elause 26 being proposed,

Mr. LIDDELL moved its omission from the bill on the
ground that its provisions would involve the candidate in
serious penalties for acts even of the most laudable and
necessary character, even those of the payment of money
on his own private account, unless such payments were
made through the election officer.
Lord J. RUSSELL expressed his opinion that the result
ofe n thedr nugatory
s
ouisuet
in
eu wouldt ofh
te election officer.
be, in many cases, to
He was favourable to the retention of the clause, and ap-
proved its principle, but thought that some mitigation
might be safely made in the extent of the penalty which it
enforced. He suggested, therefore, that, instead of mis-
demeanour, the penalty should be fixed at 50 pounds; and,
if thought necessary, Parliament might hereafter increase
ita severity.
NIT. G. M. BUTT considered the clause essential to the
bill, and approved the mitigatory suggestion of the noble
lord.

Lord R. GROSVENOR suggested that the magistrate
should have power to inflict a lower amottnt of penalty in
cases where the offence did not appear to be of a flagrant
character.
J. FOX sup ported the retention of tho clause.
If the word " misdem eauour" was to be withdrawn, the
penalty ought to he very considerably increased.
Sir F. KELLY opposed the amendment. If they au-
thorised the payment of any expenses relating to an elec-
tion except to or through the election officer, they would
open the door to a largo expenditure in bribing, treating,
and other corrupt practices. (Hear.)
Mr. W. WILLIA3IS regretted that the noble lord had

consented to withdraw the word " misdemeanour," be-
cause it was one of the best protections afforded by the bill
against bribery.
Mr. HILDYARD was afraid that persons subscribing to
any election fund would be guilty of a misdemeanour
under this clause, although they might have received the
sanction of the election officer.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think that the
clause would prevent either clubs or private individuals
from subscribing their money to secure the return of their
favourite candidate; the object of the enactment was sim-
ply to provide that money so subscribed should be paid in
the same way as the money of the candidate himself—
through the election officer. It was perfectly plain that
unless the prohibitions imposed upon candidates were ex-
tended to all other persons, the bill would be inoperative.
(Hear, hoar.) As to voters clubbing together to pay their
common expenses, ho was clearly of opinion that such a
case would not coins within the meaning of the clause.
Sir J. PAKINGTON approved the clause, but thought
the noble lord had made a desirable alteration by modi-
fying the penalties. Even with this enactment, he was
afraid they would not succeed in putting a stop to all im-
proper practices on the part of the friends of candidates.
Mr. NE WDEGATE would ask the Attorney-General
whether the fact of voters clubbing their money together
would not compel them to give an account of their ex-
penses to the election officer ? He thought the clause
would destroy the independent action of the consti-
tuencies.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said every man was en-
titled to pay his own expenses, and the mere fact of his
joining with another voter in the payment of their com-
mon expenses would not bring him within the meaning of
the clause. The sole object of the clause was to prevent
his expenses being paid by another person without the
knowledge or sanction of the election officer.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that this was one of the most
valuable clauses in the bill. It was necessary for the pro-
tection of the honest voter, would enable them to secure
purity of election, and was of still more importance as a
protection to the candidate himself.
In reply to a question from Lord R. GROSVENOR,
Sir F. KELLY said he would undertake to propose a
clause to this effect—that if, upon the trial of an action to
recover these penalties, it should appear to the judge that
payments had been made without any illegal intention, it
should be competent for him to reduce the penalties to any
sum not less than 40s.

--The amendment proposed by Lord J. Russell was then
agreed to.
Mr. LIDDELL said he was still unsatisfied with the
clause, and would persist in his motion for its rejection.
The committee then divided, when there voted—
For the clause ll5
Against it 26
Majority
The clause was accordingly agreed to as amended.
Clause 27 provides that an account of the election ex-
penses should be made out by the election officer.
Mr. HENLEY suggested that the abstract to be pub-
lished should contain an account of all sums claimed, as
well as paid, otherwise it would not afford the candidate a
sufficient protection against exorbitant claims.
Mr. WALPOLE thought the clause was sufficient as it
stood. It provided that the election officer should make a
return of all the expenses incurred by the candidate; that
should embrace all claims made upon him.
Sir F. KELLY had no objection to introduce th 3 words
" and all sums claimed, although the same shall not have
been allowed."
The clause as amended was then agreed to.

On clause 28,
Mr. HENLEY said that this clause enacted that the
returning officer should keep copies of the accounts in some
convenient place for public inspection ; but it did not pro-
vide a sufficient machinery for that purpose.

Mr. G. E. H. VERNON thought that the proposed
remuneration of 101. to the election officer would not at all
compensate him for the labour imposed by the clause.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. ELLIOT,
Sir F. KELLY admitted that some place ought to be
fixed by the act where the accounts should be deposited.
He would suggest the office of the clerk of the peace in
counties, and of the town clerk in boroughs. The accounts,
however, could be deposited with them till they were
complete, some time after the election might elapse before
that, and it would therefore bo necessary to provide some
place for their custody in the interval. He would be pre-
pared to make a proposition on bringing up the report.
Mr. HENLEY considered that the matter required
groat care ; it was necessary that some person should be in
constant attendance, or the accounts might be tampered
with by any person making a copy,
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 29, providing that the election officer shall in-
sert an abstract of the accounts in two newspapers pub-
lished or circulated in the place,
Lord R. GROSVENOR wished to know who was to
pay for the advertisement.
Sir F. KELLY said the expense should be defrayed by
the candidates.
Lord SEYMOUR reminded the hon. and learned mem-
ber that there were many districts in which there were not
two newspapers published.
Sir F. KELLY said the clause met the difficulty by the
word " circulated."
Mr. lIILDYARD did not see any necessity for the pub-
lication in the papers at all. He intended to take the
sense of the committee on the clause. If the accounts
were to be published, he thought the claims ought to be
also, and not a mere abstract.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought one newspaper would be suf-
ficient. He would move an amendment to that effect.
Mr. GROGAN said the publication in the papers would
be very expensive. He would suggest that the accounts
be not published 1101053 on the requisition of either can-
didate.

Sir J. PAKINGTON hoped his right hon. friend the
chairman of the select committee, or some other member
of it, would assign a reason for the clause. It seemed to
him very absurd ; it gave no security, and he would vote
against it unless some good reason was given.
Mr. MAGAN suggested that the accounts should be
placarded through the district instead of being published
in the papers,____

Lord SEYMOTIR asked who was to pay the election
officer for the expense of advertising ? The clause was only
permissive and not compulsory, and he regarded it as all
nonsense.

Sir F. KELLY said the clause was not his production,
but that of the hon. member for Manchester (Mr. Bright).
Still he thought it important. Its object was to give pub-
licity to the accounts, but more especially to the names of
parties who made claims upon candidates. No greater
check could be devised against improper claims upon can-
didates than publication, and ho hoped it would be adopt-
ed. The expenses of advertising would form part of the
election expenses, and would not fall upon the election
officer. At the same time he thought a single advertise-
ment would be sufficient in any one newspaper published
or circulated in the county or place.
The clause having been amended to this effect,
Mr. HILDYARD thought that his hon. and learned
friend ought not to disavow the authorship of the clause.
He reminded him of the maxim, " Qui facit per alium facit
per se." He objected to the whole cause on the ground that
it required the publication of all claims upon the candidates
which were allowed, while there was no direction to pub-
lish those which were disallowed. He moved an addition
to this effect, but should still take the sense of the committee
upon the question that the clause stand part of the bill.
Sir F. KELLY said the word " account" in this and in
the two preceding clauses would include the publication of
the charges disallowed. Still, if this interpretation was
objected to by his hon. and learned friend, he would not
oppose the introduction of words to the effect he desired.
Mr. HILD YARD totally differed from this interpreta-
tion of the three clauses.

Mr. BRIGHT said publication in the newspapers of ab-
stracts would be a check upon expenditure to which the
candidate ought not to be exposed. He recommended the
house to adopt the clause without the amendment sug-
gested by the hon. and learned member for Whitehaven.
Sir J. IVALSH contended that a great object was to be
obtained by the introduction of the words proposed by the
hon. and learned member for Whitehaven. By holding
up unjust claims upon candidates the committee would be
doing as much for the prevention of bribery as they would
by the publication of admitted claims.
Mr. BENTINCK subbinitted that tho time should be
limited during which the election officer should bo obliged
to submit the accounts to inspection. Twelve months was
too long; three months were sufficient; and ho should
move an amendment to this effect on the report.
Mr. WALPOLE approved of the clause as it stood. Tho
effect of the amendment moved by the hon. and learned
member for Whitehaven would bo that candidates would
have all sorts of exorbitant and unjust claims made upon
them by mischievous persons.
Mr. HILD YARD could not accede to this reasoning.
If the candidate was called upon to publish at all, he ought
to publish the claims that were wrong fully made upon him,
anti he denied that it would be either vexatious or unwar-
rantable.

Mr. MASSEY said the 28th clause effected all the pur-
pose of necessary
scandal. Publicity, and all ,beyond was mere

After a few words from Mr. G. BUTT, who said he should
vote for the rejection of the whole clause,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was of great im-
portance to insure authentic publicity. The 28th clause
enabled every elector to obtain the accounts, and he might
publish them
if he thought proper ; but it would be better
to adopt
means to secure publicity in an authentic form.
This was the duty of the election officer, and the object of
it was that the public might know the amount of the ex-
penditure. As to making it incumbent upon the officer to
publish the claims he disallowed as well as those allowed, it
was a minor point. He did not see much objection to it,
t certainly publication by the election officer was one of
the most important parts of the bill. (Hear.)
Mr' V. SMITH said the object of this bill was to invoke
public opinion in diminution of expenses, and for the pre-
vention of bribery.
newspapers, the provision for which he
This could only be done by publishing
th©
accounts in the
regarded as ono of the most important in the bill. But ho
did not think it would bo beneficial to publish accounts
which were disallowed.
Mr. PIGOTT objected to the amendment, on the ground
that it would tend to encourage litigation on the part of
candidates.
After a few words from Mr. BENTINCK,
Lord R. GROSVENOR called attention to the fact that
the clause did not state by whom the expenses of the pub-
lication of the accounts wore to be paid. He gave notice
that he should propose that they be paid out of the county
or borough rate, and in cases where there was neither, that
a special rate should be laid for the purpose after the
election. _ . _

SCULLY thought that all claims whatever
should be published. He was favourable to the utmost
publicity.
Mr. HILDYARD withdrew his previous verbal amend-
ment in order to move to insert after the word " correct,"
" or claims unobjected to," and at the end of the clause,
"or by which the same have been claimed respectively."
The amendment was agreed to.
Lord R. GROSVENOR moved to acid at the end of the
clause, "the expenses of such publication to be defrayed
out of the county rate or the borough rate, and where there
is neither a county nor borough rate, by a special rate
denominated an election rate, to be levied on the electoral
district."

Lord J. RUSSELL thought there was some omission in
the bill in not providing for payment of the cost of publica•
tion. Supposing the expense were to be paid by the candi-
date, a very fit place for making that addition would be at
the end of clause 34. But his noble friend said it ought
to be paid out of the borough or county rate. He thought
a great principle was involved in that proposal, and there-
fore it should be made either by a separate bill, or by a
separate clause and not by adding a few words at the end
of a clause. He did not think it advisable to throw the
expenses of an election on a county or borough, and this
amendment involved that principle, different from the law
as it now stood.
Mr. DEEDES objected to the amendment.
Mr. BRIGHT believed from his experience of newspaper
proprietors there would be great competition to get hold of
these accounts and to publish them. They would prove an
interesting item of intelligence, and Ue should be quite

content to have no provision with regard to payment for
publication. It would be greatly advantageous to the
public as well as to the candidates that publication should
take place ; the public would be great gainers by the pub-
lication ; and he was quite satisfied to allow the question
of publicity to settle itself.
Mr. lIEADLIM agreed in thinking the newspapers
would compete for the publication, but that argument was
not conclusive against the clause, as a preceding clause
provided for one authentic copy being exhibited, from
which the newspapers would make publication.
Mr. lIILDYARD said it was quite clear the house would
be guilty of a great constitutional mistake if it cast any
burden on the particular body or district which returned
members. The constitutional law was that they were
members, not for the benefit of this or that place, but for
the benefit of the nation. If the expense was to be borne
by the public, it must come out of the public purse, for
whose benefit they sat there, if they sat there for the
benefit of anybody, which people out of doors doubted. (A
laugh.) To throw any expense on a particular place would
be recognising that the member for that place was bound
to look exclusively to their interests.
The amendment was withdrawn.

On the question that the clause stand part of the bill,
Lord J. RUSSELL submitted that it was a very valu-
able clause, which he hoped the committee would adopt.
It was very true th,re would be competition to publish
these accounts, but nobody could say, unless there were an
authorised publication, that it would be a fair and correct
publication. The newspapers of ono party would give cer-
tain extracts from the accounts, and the newspapers of the
other party would give certain other extracts, but there
would not be a fair publication of the official copy of the
accounts. He thought it very desirable the constituents
should know what sum had been expended, and how that
account was made up. . _

Mr. HILDYARIi objected to the clause altogether, and
assured the house the expense of these publications would
be very heavy in counties whore there were a great many
polling places, and a corresponding number of items.
The committee divided—
For the clause l7B
Against it 94
Majority --84
The clause was accordingly agreed to, as was also
clause 30.

On clause 31 being proposed,
Mr. BENTINCK called attention to the fact, that up to
the present time no precaution had been taken with re-
spect to the character of the person to be appointed elec-
tion officer.
Sir F. KELLY said that means would be taken to have the
duties of the election officer efficiently performed byimposing
penalties for the non-performance of them. If an election
officer were guilty of embezzlement or ran away, he would be
indictable and liable to punishment. It was originally pro-
posed to appoint a barrister, but the proposal was met
both in the committee and in the house with universal
disapprobation. Ho would be exceedingly indebted, and
he was sure the Government would also be indebted, to
any hon. gentleman who would frame a clauso to meet the
difficulty of the case.

Mr. BENTINCK did not see that there was much use in
indicting a man who had gone to America. Ho did not
see anything in the clause to enforce the payment of money,
or the return of documents in the hands of an election
officer at the time of his death by heirs.
Mr. J. BALL suggested there should boa power of ap.
peal against the domination of an improper person.
Mr. HILDYARD thought that security should be given
that the person who was appointed should not be a person
who was capable of absconding, and thereby preventing an
investigation into the practices that had taken place.
The clause was then agreed to.
On clause 32 being proposed,
Lord SEYMOUR wished to know how an agent was to
act who was going about the country incurring expenses ;
should he take the election officer with him, or should he
return to the election officer to have the expenditure ap-
proved of ?
Sir F. KELLY stated that the candidate would appoint
his agent in writing, and notify the appointment to the
election officer, so that every person interested in the elec-
tion might know who the agents were that the candidate
had appointed.
Mr. LABOUCHERE wished to receive some explana-
tion of what was meant by an agent.
Sir F. KELLY replied that an agent was indicated by
the payment of money, but a person could not be consi-
dered an agent because he bad conveyed a letter or per-
formed a small matter of that kind.

Mr. B. DENISON said, that if agency were to be con-
fined under this clause to the payment of money, it should
be so stated.
Mr. HENLEY said that it was rather hard to ask the
house to pass a clause directing a candidate to make a de-
claration, when they did not know what he was to declare.
He thought that they should have some more precise defi-
nition of the word "agent" than was contained in the
bill. He did not see how this clause could be carried out
in the case—not a very unfrequent ono—in which a person
was nominated without his knowledge. He would then
be a "candidate," and as such would by this clause be
compelled to inform the election of of the name of his
agent, although in fact he had none and knew nothing
about the matter.

Mr. V. SCULLY suggested that the words "if any°
should be inserted after the word "agent" He did this
in order to meet the case of a candidate not having an
agent.

-Mr. G. H. VERNON asked if it would be possible to
insert a provision to make some one answerable for the
expenditure, in the place of the candidate, in cases where
the latter was nominated without his knowledge. Could
they not, in such a case, throw the responsibility upon his
proposer.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that some pro-
vision should be inserted to enable some one, in the absence
of a candidate, to do what he might and ought to do if
present, otherwise the current expenses could not be paid.
Sir F. KELLY also thought that some provision was
requisite t•o meet the case of a candidate nominated with-
out his knowledge. It would, however, be impossible to
insert words with that object in the present clause. He
would undertake to frame a clause which, if assented to
by the house, might be inserted on bringing up the report.
Lord ADOLPHUS V. TEMPEST then moved that

the following provision should be added to the clause :
" And no person being a candidate at any election, or hav-
ing been elected, who shall have made the declaration re-
quired by this act, and shall in all things have well and
truly conformed thereto, and shall not have been guilty of
any contravention of this act, shall be liable civilly or cri-
minally, nor shall his election be questioned by reason of
any illegal act done by any other person than his agent
or agents named and notified to the election officer, accord-
ing to the provisions of this act, unless such illegal act
shall be proved to have been done by or with his authority
or sanction : Provided al ways, that nothing herein con-
tained shall be deemed to legalise any controverted elec-
tion, or to affect the jurisdiction of a select committee of
the House of Commons over any election which shall be
shown to have been obtained by bribery or any other ille-
gal act or acts or practices."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the amendment,
and said he believed all the good which the bill was calcu-
lated to effect would be very dearly purchased if such an
innovation was introduced. It had been hitherto held
that candidates were responsible for the acts of their agents,
at least in a Parliamentary sense, if not in a legal one.
Mr. WA LPOLE thought that the clause proposed by his
noble friend simply provided that, before the seat of a
member was taken away, or before a candidate was affected
by the consequences of bribery, treating, and undue in-
fluence, it should be shown that such acts were done, not
merely by his friends, but with his implied or expressed
authority, or were subsequently sanctioned by him.
the
introductiondi d lie t thinke
ft this i snae aw
mendment ehnutt proposed orsaetchl
0.
of an old law.
RS
Mr. G. P. BENTINCK thought that the
aheo
juisse
statew
bound to apply some remedy to the veryofaane-oemnts rested at
of the law on this question. The case
committees of the
present solely on the caprice of election
of his noble
anything like
recognition
those who had charge of the bill
friend was not carried, the
to remedy this
would themselves adopt 50100
anomalous, if not absurd, state of things.
f
house,3ir.
Ha and
AhDe
LA m hoped o
pt
ph
oa
st
eidf
the
sp amendmentraoipsadoption
theamend-
ment, which he considered opened a side door to bribery
and corruption. The candidates, if it were carried, might
reap with impunity all the advantages of such acts.
Mr. AG LIONBY also opposed the amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL feared that the proviso would greatly
embarrass the operations of the bill, and that there would
be danger in the principle.
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it 143
Majority
The amendment was, therefore, lost; and the clause, as
' amended, was ordered to stand part of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again on Thursday.
STAMP DUTIES BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill, and
resumed the consideration of its clauses.
Clause 9 having been agreed to, several new clauses were
brought up by Mr. WILSON, and incorporated in the bill.
Mr. VANCE moved the addition of the following clause :
—" Whereas it is expedient to reduce the stamp duty now
t el bill
l forar
dutyre-distributing
any
payable on deeds of submission and award in cases of arbi-
tration ; be it enacted that the stamp duty of 35s
now
payable on deeds of submission and award in cases of arbi-
tration, shall be reduced to the sum of 205."
w a3e I rn. :W reason I L WILSON Of
for
reducing
ud
nh
gi s
thwisaspaar
b
and not reducing the stamp duties, and therefore there
more
than there was for reducing any other of the duties.
The committee divided, when the numbers were--
For the clause
Against
tinigt 1
clauses were agreed to, the CHAIIIMAN4S3
Arclauseegnai -
TThhee
reported progress, and the house resumed.
STANDARD OF GOLD AND SILVER WARES BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill, the various
clauses of which were agreed to.
read ae tthhiirrdd time
readingan d passed.f
this
bill,
illw The house having resumed, the order for the third read-
o
ing of the Wreck and Salvage Bill was discharged.
ThsJOINT-STOCK BANKS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
POOR-LAW CONTINUANCE (IRELAND) BILL.
On i
thbe orde ars fo e
ra d
h
Colonel DUNNE asked for an inquiry into the expenses
of the commission, which he characterised as extravagant,
and also into the administration of the law in Ireland.
Mr. J. BALL denied that the expenses of the commis-
sion were extravagant, and, notwithstanding it was a (luster-
past one o'clock, and in spite of unmistakeable manifesta-
tions of impatience on the part of house, adduced statistics
upon the subject.
Mr. BUTT, with a view "to cut short the debate,"
moved its adjournment.
Sir JOHN YOUNG opposed the motion as unreason-
able, and promised that, during the recess, inquiries
should be made into the powers and expenses of the com-
mission. He thought that this assurance ought to be suf-
ficient, and could not consent to an inquiry into the whole
working of the law, with which he believed the majority
of the Irish people were satisfied.
The house divided on the question of adjournment, and
the numbers were—

For the motion
Against it B3
Majority
Mr. VANSITTART then moved the adjournment of
the house; when, upon a division, there appeared

For the motion
Against it
Majority

-76

Colonel DITNNE moved an amendment limiting the
existence of tho new commission to two instead of four
years, as originally proposed. The house divided, when
there appeared—

Yor the motion
Against it
... .
' Majority" 45
The bill wo then road a time.

JAMAICA LOAN BILL.
On the motion of Mr. WILSON this bill passed through
committee.

CHANCERY AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL this bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on
Friday.
COURT OF CHANCERY (COUNTY PALATINE OF
LANCASHIRE) BILL.
On the motion of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL this bill
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.
REGISTRATION OF BILLS OF SALE (IRELAND)

BILL.
This bill wag read a third time and passed.
MEDICAL GRADUATES (UNIVERSITY OF
LONDON) BILL.

On the motion that this bill bo read a third time,
Mr. COWAN expressad a hope that it would be post-
poned until the next sesKion.

- After some discussion. the third reading was postponed
till Thursday.

SALE OF BEER, &c., BILL.

Mr. W. PATTEN moved the'second reading of this bill.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELI) said he would oppose the bill
unless the hon. member would agree to extend the time
of closing public-houses on Sunday evenings from nine
o'clock until ten.

Lord D. STUART supported the proposition of the hon.
member for Birmingham.
After a few remarks from Mr. F. CROSSLET,
Mr. W. PAT I'EN• agreed to the suggestion of the hon.
member for Birmingham.
The bill was read the second time.
The Returning-officer Bill passed through committee.
At the suggestion .of the SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
Mr. PELLATT withdrew the Letters Patent for Inven-
tions Bill.