The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-21 00:00:00

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The orders of the day were read and postponed, with
the view of proceeding with the committee on the Bribery
Bill.

. Lord SEYMOITR asked whether these 38 orders would
come on to-night ? Would they be brought on at a late
hour? It would be convenient to many members to know
what orders would come on and what would not. There
was the committee on the Metropolitan Sewers Bill, would
that come on to-night? because some explanation must be
given previously to going into committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not state which were
coming on without going through the 39 orders. He could
say that if progress was made with the Bribery Bill, at 11
o'clock he would begin to go through the other bills on the
paper.
Mr. DISRAELI incfuired whether it was the intention
of the Government to go on with the West India Incum-
berecl Estates Bill, which, stood on the paper ?
Sir G. GREY was understood to say that this being one
of the bills which had come down from the House of Lords,
it would not be disposed of at present.
BRIBERY BILL.

• The house then went into committee on this bill.
Progress was resumed at the 34th clause.
Sir F. KELLY said it had been suggested that no power
was given for the payment of the election expenses of the
eleCtion officer,
.himself,..and other expenses he would be
put to, such as advertising, &a. He proposed to provide
for that by adding words to the effect, " that all reasonable
expenses incurred by the election officers under the provi-
sions of the present act should form part of the election
expenses."
Mr. BE NTIIMIC thought the clause ought to define in
some measure :That were "reasonable expenses." He
thought 101.: was too small a sum to pay to the election
officer. They wanted a better class of men than they were
likely to get for, that sum ; but he thought the election
oficer ought not. to be paid a per centage on all the bills
he allowed, but he rather ought to be paid in an inverse
ratio.

__—
After a few
.words from Mr. VERNON, Mr. EGERTON,
and Mr. V. SCULLY, the latter of whom complained of the
vagueness of the clause,
Mr. W. WI(4LIAMS observed that the bill had been
drawn up with great care by some of the most eminent
lawyers in the house, the members for Suffolk, Midhurst,
and Bath, and by the Attorney-General ; and he believed
with an anxiety that it should be effective for its purpose
Mr. ELLIOTT suggested that the charges of the election
officer should be subjected to the revision of the returning
officer. _

Lord HOTHAM-thought the proposed payment-101.—
to the election officer by each candidate was too little, and
moved that it shoukl be 100/. altogether.
Mr. HENLEY said they had got beyond that part of
the clause, and therefore that amendment could not now
be put. He thought that any difference between the can-
didate and the election officer should be decided by the
ordinary tribunals of the country. There was another
difficulty. They had defined a candidate to be, not a man
who was proposed on the day of nomination, but a man
who offered himself at any time before the election. A
man of straw might offer himself who was totally unable
to pay the 101., and What were they to do in a case of
that kind ? Were the other candidates to pay for him ?
Mr. GOULI3URN observed that any two gentlemen be-

- -
longing to a county or a borough might put up a gentleman
without his knowledge or concurrence, and as the clause
stood he would. be compelled to pay 101. to the election
officer. ... _

VERNON said, a gentleman canvassed a borough,
8-.37 for two days, and then finding he had no chance went
away, was he to pay the election officer 101., who would
have nothing w.hatever.to do for him.
Mr. V. SCULLY said if the definition of a candidate
stood as at present; such a person would undoubtedly have
to paylhe 10/. -He did not think the expenses of the
election officer should be revised by the returning officer,
as in that case those two officers would be revising one
another's expenses, nog did he think that the candidate
should be obliged to resort to the ordinary tribunals, be-
cause the candidate would be in the no., er of the election
officer. The proper and only fit man to decide this ques-
tion of election expenses was the county court judge in
England and the assistant barrister in Ireland, but there
appealed to be stupid prejudice in the way of the adoption
of that suggestion. _ _ _

Mr. L.— HEYWORTH contended that the expense of
this officer ought to be borne by the state. It was too
hard to call upon the candidate to pay who volunteered his
services and devoted his time gratuitously to the service of
the country. He would propose, therefore, that the ex-
penses of this officer should be defrayed by the borough or

county rate, as the case might be. -
After sbale further discussion tho committee divided on
the question that the proposed words be added to the
clause, when there appeared—
__

For the addition B3
Against it •
Majority —32
The worda were accordingly added to the clause.
The committee again divided ou the question that clause
34, as amended, should stand part of the bill, when there
appeared—

For the clause
Against it
iTijority: ,
The clause was accordingly added to the bill
Clang,)-35, providing the short title of the bill, was
agreed to without any discussion.
Clause 33, the interpretation clause, led to some slight
discussioh'aS to what should constitute a candidate, with
power to set the machinery of the election officer in

-56

motion. - f -
Mr. IiLLbY.A.RD siaggested the insertion of words pro-