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

BISHOPRIC OF NEW ZEALAND.

Sir J. PAKINGTON asked the Colonial Secretary if, he
had received a letter from Sir G. Grey, the late Geyer4or
of Now Zealand, holding out a prospect that the'local.
legislature of that colony would make good the stipend of
the bishop of New Zealand.
Sir G. GREY had received no letter, but he had had.
a conversation on the subject. Whether the result of that
conversation had been reduced to writing he could not say,
but he would inquire.
Sir J. PAKING-TON—And produce the memorandum.
Sir G. GREY—Yes; if there is any.
DISTRICT LETTER-CARRIERS.
Mr. NEWDEGATE inquired if the Postmaster-General
had made any .new arrangement in reference to the pay-
ment of the district letter-carriers ?

Mr. J. WILSON replied that a committee of inquiry
had recently been appointed to inquire into the Post-office
arrangements, and their report had been presented to the
Treasury, and would in a few days be laid before the
house. That report, amongst other matters, referred to
the pay of the letter-carriers, and the relative position of
the district and general letter-carriers, and if that report
should be sanctioned, the Postmaster-General would pro-
ceed to act upon it.
Mr. V. SCULLY—Does that report'refer to the pay of
the letter-carriers and postmasters of Ireland ?
Mr. J. WILSON—No ; the inquiry was confined to the
London office.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
In reply to Sir J. PAKINGTON,
Lord J. RUBSILL said that on Monday nest he pro-
peed, the ota ittr-thhewnier

11Wi
army department in committee of supply. - •
POSTAGE OF PRINTED PAPERS.
Mr. M. GIBSON—When will the Secretary of the Tree.
eury lay upon the table of the house the now Treasury inf.
nute he informed us was in course of preparation in refer-
ence to the conveyance of printed papers by the Post•olsce
—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.

BRIBERY 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? Ho 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. Pakington) thought that tho appointment of such
an officer, if carried out properly, was one of the most im-
portant steps towards putting an end to bribery that had
yet been suggested ; and therefore the greater should be
the care taken with regard 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 noticoneur in the appointment the returning officer
could not appoint him till the day of nomination, because
lie 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. He 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 reepectable 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 hon. 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, anti
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 had. 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` er-
.` pa_ e
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, ho thought the appointment ought to
take place previous to the election.
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-
mentofficer.personsA Ccetaendd ais-
of this What was a canaldil el
date
date" was in the first place to mean
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
Hear, and laughter.) The hon, member
be proposed ? (
fol. Leominster said that a banker's clerk would do as well
for the office as a barrister, his functions being merely
Ministerial. He (Mr. Henley) thought, however, that his
duties would be about as delicate and difficult as could be
well conceiVed, Without his sanction. A 041440 would

[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 know the
wonderful acumen which the right hon. gentleman always
brought to bear upon the clauses of a bill : but ho must
say he had never known him exercise his powers more con
amore than he bad clone 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 as possible. lie 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, and that the accounts should afterwards be pub-
lished to the world would be a far better preventative of
corruption than 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 °dicer by the candidates themselves appeared
to him to be insuperable. (Hear, hear.) The objection to
le'aVing the appointment to tbe judgesor revising barristers
was, that they 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 he 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.
nal enacticauktik—
Lord. RUSSELL thortaht that it was, at any rate,
'isnent of the
.4t#W.. 11411 J
agreed with what had fallen from the Attorey-Ueneral,
and he proposed to make the clause run thus :—" The
sheriff of every county, and the returning officer of every
city or borough, shall, immediately after his appointment
appoint an election officer, 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 members to serve in Parliament, shall appoint
an election officer to be called `The auditor of election ex-
penses,' to act at every election during the year then next
ensuing."
Mr. J. E. DENISON thought the election auditors
should give some security that the funds placed at their
disposal should be forthcoming when required to pay the
election 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.
•GROGAN said if M 1; Massey would move the
omission of the clause, he should have his support. (Hear.)
• Mr. G. H. VERNON preferred the appointment of the
election officer by the returning officer immediately after
his own. The returning officer would then be responsible
for his own nominee.
Mr. HILDY.A_R.D expressed some alarm lest the validity
of elections should be endangered by the irregularity of the
election auditor's appointment. He had never seen a bill
in his life which laid more trapfalls for candidates than
did this bill, and the committee ought therefore to be
doubly cautions in deciding upon its phraseology.
Mr. J. FITZGERALD reminded the hon. and learned
member that 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 a ndidate
Very often it was very long
before the election tookc place,
atid all this time expenses were being otnhstantg:lndcurred.
Under these circumstances he thought set np
some landmarks, from which the electioenyosfficer should
• have power to start in authorising the payment of expenses.
' Mr. NEWDEGATE concurred very much with what
had fallen from the last speaker, and unless they decided
what should be, and what should not be, election expenses,
there would be no end to disputes and litigation under
this bill. Let the committee, then, put some words in
this clause which should clearly and explicitly define what
election expenses were. Tho 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 ought to rest with the returning officer, and
not with his nominee. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said the discussion had not re-
moved his objections, and he must therefore persevere in
pressing upon the attention of the committtee the views
which he had propounded in the early part of this debate.
The bill gave them no security for the character and pro-
per conduct of this election officer, while he was very
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 look at the clause
with great suspicion, and he must again object to estrus

-shad acquired the
rad
"or wont iscciired *me
her equally respo'nsalii position. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. GROSVENOR was verry sorry to add his
voice to the objections which had been raised against
this clause, but it appeared to hina 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 sup-
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 be 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.
Ho 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.
(Hear, 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 whoin he would venture
to say had no intention when they became candidates of
securing their seats by corrupt means. But the position
of things was such under the existing system, that a
candidate honestly desiring to confine himself to the
strict legal expenses, might find, six months after his
election, that, unknown to him, large sums of money had
been expended on his behalf in bribery, and might lose
his seat in consequence. This was no unusual occurrence,
and ho thought it would be a great security, therefore, if,
by any plan like that provided in those clauses, they could
be sure that all the legal expenses incurred at the election
should bo 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 ho
believed that if candidates and those who were concerted
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 ef
such publicity would be that the expenses of elections
br
jeoaottl
iyo
oa diminishedble
mwouncihdlels'es objectionable now renderedtoo
nd corruptin amount,
thai tahnedy
frequently were. (Hear.) But it had been
under this clause many questions of great
difficultyurgedwothoaldt
e s respon-
sibility an election began, or where the e
thembegi inni
beginning
the
fptrhe
:-
arise, and that, for instance, it wouldsobthe ddiaqffitaucne,usdlttriioftnossaoyf
they
thissib il
kindty commenced.
that might
were called upon Nrooqudioruebtmot
wouldeve r
onooanttebt ohefel likely now in th
chheredewbaetere,
mseonnttbhillo,fhjouadmittedly,orte stehtetyle
ebill in
month of February, to pass the the present session
• men would be able, he apprehended, to
—that practical oven if they w
solve those questions tolerably well when they come before
them; and if it were contended before an election com-
mittee that a gentleman, because he might have exhibited
great hospitality and great liberality in the borough or
vosi influence
disposet the electors, t
ootr
suchs, he
an thought
allegation.o ght the
county five or six years before, had done so as a candidate,
and h a w
vioeuw t
ld ry so eonnce
(Hear, hear.) He 'hoped for the reasons he had stated
committeewit
that his hon. friend, the chairman of the committee, would
not be a party to the withdrawal of the clause.
Sir J. SHELLEY remarked that as his oie ;:(Cheersio
the appointment of the election officer by Lee cleanndl'eate,
and as he underst)od 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 •
which they considered would
cure the evil.
Mr. J. G. PIIILLIMORE 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 au observation from Sir F. KELLY, suggesting
that the election officer should be appointed annually in
the mouth of August, some discussion followed on verbal
amendments, which were proposed. At length the clause,
as amended, was put by the chairman.
On the que•tion 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 pers3n
would be appointed, and secondly, before the appointment
of a person who was to have the sole control of all election

• expenses, you were bound in justice to the candidates and
electors to state what were and what were not legitimate
expenses.
Mr. CAIRNS said he thought it desirable that the clause
should bo negatived unless some understanding was given
that it would be brought forward in a different form.
After a few words from Mr. GROGAN and Mr. L. HEY-
WORTH,
Mr. V. SMITH, as a member of the select committee on
this bill, wished to say that if there was one point on which
the committee was agreed, it was the appointment of an
election officer to audit the expenses of elections, The
hon. member for Belfast said this officer had no discretion
or jurisdiction, and that certainly was felt to be a difficulty
in the committee; but the great point was the publication
of election expenses, and he (Mr. V. Smith) had groat faith
in that plan, and he believed that it would have the great-
est effect in deterring persons from the commission of
bribery. He thought it the best and most important part
of the bill.
Sir F. 'KELLY said several of the objections which bad
been taken to this clause arose not on the clause itself, but
on others which followed it, and to which the oommittee
had not yet come. This clause provided for the appoint-
ment of an election officer, to whom, and through whom,
all election expenses were to be paid. The evil that
they had to deal with was a most gnevons and enormous
ono ; for in spite of election committees and other
judicial action, bribery had gone on increasing until it had
reached a magnitude which was most discreditable
to the constitution and to the people of this country.
He must remind the committee that the law with
regard to what constituted bribery and other illegal
practice would not be altered by this bill ; and all that the
candidate or his agents would have to do would be to take
care to pay no money except in the manner provided.
(Cries of " Divide.") The only effect of this change in the
law would be to prevent the misapplication of moneys
which could not be avoided at present.
After a few words from Mr. MALTS and Mr. W. WIL-
LIAMS,

The committee divided—
For the clause 133
Against it.
Majority --59
Clause 18 was negatived.
Clause 19 was agreed to, with some verbal amendments.
On clause 20, which provides that the candidate or his
agent shall, within two months of the day of the declara-
tion of the election, or within one month after the bill has
been delivered, send it in to the election officer.
3lr. HILDY.A.RD objected to the shortness of the time,
and moved as an amendment that the periods be three
months and two months.
The amendment was agreed to.
PlGOUmoved to-alter the 5Ol. to 201.
—This Was penalty
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that the furtherieilieliri., of 201., imposed by the same clause, be altered to 1 .
Agreed to.
The word " wilful" was also inserted before the word
"default."
In answer to Mr. MASSEY,
Mr. WALPOLE said the committee thought that; those
penalties which involved disfranchisement, or the lose of
seat, should be recovered only in a superior court, but that
all the others shouldbe sued for in the county courts.
Mr. MASSEY gave notice that he should move a proviso
barring the jurisdiction of county courts in all cases.
Mr. WALPOLE asked whether tinder 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 be no
foga) "abjection to its being paid. He felt very much dia.
Poeedto support Mr. Massey's proviso.
The, clause was then agreed to.
On clause 21, which enacts that no payments are to be
made except through the election officer, personal and ad-
vertising expenses excepted, the words " any money what•
ever" were inserted after "claim" in the first line.
Mr. E. DENISON thought there should be some limi•
tation with regard to time in connexion
.with current ex-
penses.
Mr. WALPOLE proposed to strike out the words "or
in connexion with" in line two, which was agreed to.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD said that 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.
Lard SEYMOUR thought that the clause should more
clearly define the tribunal before which the proof was to
be made, whether before a court of law or a committee of
the house. (Hear.)
Mr. HILDYARD doubted if an election committee •
would have jurisdiction if words were not introduced more
clearly defining the tribnnalbefore which the proof was to
be taken. It seemed to hint that it would be necessary to
exclude registration expenses under this bill, 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 through the opera•
tion-of the clause.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the penalty in the clause
too severe, and was willing to adopt the amendment pro-
posed by the hon and learned member for Ennis.
Mr. WALPOLE concurred in the same view.
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, 4.8., do solemnly and sincerely de-
clare, without any equivocation or mental reservation,
that I have not knowingly made, authorised, or sanctioned,
and that I will not knowingimake, authorise, or sanction
any payment on account of my election, other than is al-
lowed by law under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act
of 1851. . Now, if the member who had taken his seat
after that declaiation,4md who had violated the law was
subjected to a penalty of only 101., it might appear that
they were dealing in a different spirit twirds the mtmber,
and towards the elect Ors, whom by previous clauses they
struck off the lists. (Hear.) In assenting to the amend-
ment they should take care that they were not acting in-
consistently and more leniently towards themselves than
towards the electors.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIVORE said the object of the amend-
ment was not to avert the consequences of corrupt practices
on the part of the members, but to guard against the con-
sequence that would arise-if some trilling payment had not
passed through the hands of the election agent.
Mr. NEWDEGATE wished to know if it was intended
to assign a limit of time within which this provision was
to operate.
Mr. H. WILLOUGHBY said that customs varied in
different boroughs, and money was often paid, not as bri-
bery, but because it was customary, as was the case with
respect to chairing exre 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 in them-
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
apprehension. 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 understand why all
the payments of an election should be made through the
public officer. (Hear, 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
as it stood.
Mr. FITZGERALD said the object of. his suggestion
was 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 include it in the clause.
Mr. S. WORTLEY said the clause was surrounded with
so much difficulty that it would be better to postpone it
altogether. It was quite impossible to del ide what mut or
what was not a a payment incident to thnelection.
Mr. PIGOTT also thought there was a difficulty in de-
ciding what were election payments. .
For instance,
didates were often called upon to contribute towards n.
repairctahefo ti hho ea os of
fe subscriptions
oatio
ochurch ow
r a race
er to h
o f fund,
Lkanefni a hes paymentwanted
incidenti
tnot.
WALPOLE had no hesitation in saying decidedly
Mr. HILDYARD contended
ut liiatthbeocarried
all
members legislation
uhd
ne
adr
was useless, because bribery would
the guise of the subscriptions which
Suggested. Suppose a coal fund were established in a bo-
rough, and one candidate subscribed 1,0001. to it, while
the other declined to contribute anything to it, could the
committee have any doubt in deciding which candidate
would be returned? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. 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 •
had arrived for reporting progress, he would move that the
chairman should do so accordingly. (Hear, hear.)
Lord. J. RUSSELL hoped the committee would consent
to dispose of this clause before they reported progress.
On the question that the 21st clause should part
of
stand
of the bill,
Lor&R. GROSVENOR moved that the claw 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 , .. 67-81
The house then resumed.

STAMP ACTS.

~~.

The report of the committee altering the rate of the pre•
sent duties was brought up.
Mr. HADFIELD moved that the proposed rate be sr
duced in one instance by one-sixth.
Mr. WILSON hoped the hon. member would not call
for a division at this mere formal stage of the proceed-
ings, seeing that opportunities would be afforded for PM'
posing the amendment on the bill.
Mr. HADFIELD intimated that he would divide, but
the opinion of the house being obviously against him. aft"
the house had been cleared for a division he consented to
the amendment being negatived.
The new schedule of duties was then put and agreed to.
POOR-LAW COMMISSION CONTINUANCE
(IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Colonel DUNNE objected unless the Government would
consent to limit the duration of the commission for two
years. (Oh, ob.)
Sir J. YOUNG could not consent to the hon. and galls at
r urryedhteheeould not consent to
ProPosal of Colonel
lly voted, the house had full control over the ma
nonffincuear's proposal, and intimated that, as the salaries were
mission.
the renewal of the commission for five years.
Dunne.Mr
The house then divided—
For iAt
hRoTu Nt
aB
For going into committee B2
Againstit .................................
fYullsuinp
45-37
The house then went into committee on the still olan
Colonel DUNNE moved that the chairman Av"port.
progress.
Lord. J. RUSSELL said that the hon.
gain his object without taking this aleMbOmiltilt
course, for fhe-Giirons-
silent would grant au inquiry.
After a discussion, the house divided...
For reporting progress 2B
Against it
The bill then passed through committee.
90-62
Colonel DUNN& gave notice that on the third reading