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

TRJ SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 181 1.854.

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. HEA.DL A.M 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 authentio copy being exhibited, from
which the newspapers would make publication.
Mr. HILDYARD said it wasquite clear thehouse 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The amendment was withdrawn.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 there 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. HILDYARD objected to the clause altogether, and
assured the house the expense of these publications would
be very heavy in counties where there were a great many
polling places, and a corresponding number of items.
The committee divided—
For the clause
Against it..

178
91
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 by imposing
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. He would be exceedingly indebted, and
he was sure the Government would also be indebted, to
any hon. gentleman who would frame a clause 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. He 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 be a 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 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 always, 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 bean 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 act's were done, not
merely by his friends, but with his implied or expressed
authority, or were subsequently sanctioned by him. He
did not think this amendment proposed anything like the
introduction of a now law, but was rather the recognition
of an old law.

Mr. G. P. BENTINCK thought that the house was
bound to apply some remedy to the very anomalous state
of the law on this question. The case of agents rested at
present solely on the caprice of election committees of the
house, and ho hoped that if the amendment of his noble
friend was not carried, those who had charge of the bill
would themselves adopt some provision to remedy this
anomalous, if not absurd, state of things.
Mr. HEADL AM opposed the adoption of the amend-
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. AGLIONBY 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
payable on deeds of submission and award in cases of arbi-
tration ; be it enacted that the stamp duty of 355., now
payable on deeds of submission and award in cases of arbi-
tration, shall be reduced to the sum of 205."
Mr. WILSON said this was a bill for re-distributing
and not reducing the stamp duties, and therefore there
was no reason for reducing this particular duty any more
than there was for reducing any other of the duties.
The committee divided, when the numbers were—
For the clause
Against it lO5
Majority
The clause was therefore lost.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, the CHAIRMAN
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.

The house having resumed, the order for the third read-
ing of the Wreck and Salvage Bill was discharged.
JOINT-STOCK BANKS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
POOR-LAW CONTINUANCE (IRELAND) BILL.
On the order for the third reading of this bill,
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 quater-
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
83
Majority
—47
Mr. VANSITTART then moved tho adjournment of
the house; when, upon a division, there appeared
For the motion
Against it
Majority
Colonel DUNNE moved an amendment limiting the
existence of the new commission to two instead of four
years, as originally proposed. The house divided, when
there appeared— -
For the motion

97

37

Against it
Majority
The bill was then read a time.
JAMAICA LOAN' BILL.
On the motion of Mr. WILSON this bill passed through
committee.

82
-45