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

I viding that all persons announcing themselves candidates
after the taste of the writ should have that power.
Sir F. KELLY preferred the words as they were.
Mr. CAYL EY suggested that no person should be ad-
mitted as a can lidate unless he had given two days' notice
in boroughs, and four days' notice in the counties to the re-
turning officer. The object of the bill was to lessen the
expenses, and it was notorious that the costliness of elec-
tions was caused principally by preparing for a sudden
contingency.
Mr. E. DENISON was afraid the proposal would only
lead to more contested elections, and to yet greater expenso.
An HON. MEMBER reminded the committee that the
proposal would also curtail the privileges of the electors,
any one of whom had the right of proposing anybody he
pleased at the time of the nomination. (Hear.)
These suggestions were not persisted in.
Sir F. KELLY then proposed some verbal alterations in
the definition of " personal expenses," so as to make them
include all "reasonable" travelling and hotel expenses.
Mr. PERCY wished to know whether the expenses of
chairing could be considered as personal expenses. (Hear.)
Sir F. KELLY said they could certainly not, nor did
be see how they could be regarded as legal expenses at all.
He thought that chairing ought to be prohibited alto-
gether. (Hear.) He could speak feelingly, for he had on
two occasions sums to pay on this account so enormous
that if he were to mention them he should hardly be
credited. (Hear, hear.)
The clause, together with the schedules, was agreed to.
Lord R. GROSVENOR then brought up two new
clauses, rendering the giving or receiving of travelling ex-
penses, or refreshment tickets, a misdemeanour, punish-
able in the one case by a fine of 501., and in the other by
one of 40s. His object was to put an end to a vicious sys-
tem which the act, though it would check it, would not as
it stood entirely put down. The expenses of the last
Middlesex election had been no less than 30,0001., and
where sums so largo were expended, it was impossible not
to suspect the presence of much unfair and improper in-
fluence.
Mr. J. BALL said that some of the expenses referred
to in the first clause were legal, and others as clearly
illegal.
Mr. L. HEYWORTH was in favour of the principle of
every voter paying his own expenses. Some few might be
prevented from voting on this ground, but the way to re-
medy that would he to give universal suffrage.
Mr. ELLIOT thought that in Scotland there would be
great difficulty in bringing voters to the poll—a distance
of perhaps 15 or 20 miles—without an allowance for tra-
velling expenses.
Sir F. KELLY said the operation of the clause would be
most severe and oppressive. It would render absolutely ille-
gal the smallest assistance rendered by any person in bring-
ing a voter to the poll. They had the high authority of
Lord Lyndhurst that reasonable travelling expenses and
refreshments for voters coming from a distance were not
illegal, either by the common or statute law. On the
other hand, the Attorney-General had given it as his
opinion that both these classes of expenditure were ab-
solutely illegal. Hence the necessity of settling what
really was the law. (Hear, hear,) At present any expendi-
ture, however small, might be made the subject of a peti-
' tion, and brought before a committee; and if the members
of that committee held with the Attorney-General, the sit-
ting member would be unseated. Another committee next
door might decide, on the authority of Lord Lyndhurst,
that the election was a good one. (Hear.) He sincerely
hoped that the house would settle this question. (Cheers.)
Mr. COBDEN said he had watched with much interest
the proceedings of the hon. and learned gentleman in his
somewhat novel character of reformer and purifier of our
election proceedings ; but he should be sorry if the house
was induced to affirm the proposition he had now laid down,
and should deeply regret, in the interests of election mo-
rality, that he had ever touched the question at all. (Hear.)
If they attempted to legislate with no better definition than
reasonable and unreasonable expenses, they would be open-
ing a door to every conceivable excess and corruption on
the day of electiou. (Hear.) What was reasonable for one
man, who could carry off two bottles of port wine without
being the least excited, would be very unreasonable for an-
other weak-headed man, who would be rolled in the dust
by half a bottle. (Laughter.) And how would an election
committee decide what was reasonable for a thirsty man,
and for one who had not the least appetite for drink ? To
legalise this definition of reasonable and unreasonable would
do more harm than if they never touched the question at
all. He was confident the bill would never pass with a
clause affirming the legality of giving reasonable refresh-
ment on the polling-day. He was quite of opinion that
the question should be settled, but he hoped that if candi-
dates were allowed to pay for carriages and refreshments,
the bill would never be permitted to pass that house.
Sir J. WALSH concurred with the hon. member in
thinking that the law on the subject should be settled.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL admitted that it was a
subject for regret that the decisions of courts of law and
of that house were conflicting on the subject of treating.
In his opinion he believed that payments for refreshments
were within the Treating Act. With regal d to the ques-
tion of conveyances for bringing voters to the poll, no one
would be more satisfied than himself with a declaration of
that house, that in boroughs such a step was illegal.
Mr. WALPOLE said, supposing there was no corrupt
motive, he could not see aoy reason why a candidate
should not, out of gratitude to a voter who had given him
his vote, pay those travelling expenses which that voter
could not afford. (Hear, hear.) He would beg the com-
mittee to bear in mind that he was supposing no corrupt
motive existed. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the ques-
tion of refreshment, he thought that if some limit—say,
. for instance, no sum above 2s. per voter—were instituted,
there would be no objection to refreshment being alto red.
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with hon. gentlemen that it
was a very reasonable opinion which seemed to prevail in
the committee that, as they were now framing a law on
this subject, candidates and the country generally should
be informed whether the expenses of travelling and re-
freshment were legal 'or illegal. Upon considering this
question his hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General
appeared to be of opinion that bona fide travelling expenses
were not illegal, but that payment for refreshment came
within the Treating Act. Ile (Lord J. Russell) thought
that opinion at least expressed what the law ought to
be. (Hear, hear.) There appeared to him to be a
wide difference between travelling and refreshment
expenses. A poor man, living some miles from a polling
place, might very well say, and he would be justi-
fied in saying, "I cannot put such a value on my franchise
that I can afford, not only to lose my time, but to expend
my money also." He thought in such a case it was not
desirable to declare that candidates should not be at liberty
to pay the travelling expenses, and he therefore could not
give his assent to the vote before the committee. But the
expenses of refreshment stood on a very different footing.
That was an expense which the voter would haveto defray
if he stopped at home, and meeting with his neighbours at
the election, by joining with them, he need not be put to
any extra expense on account of refreshment. He (Lord
J. Russell) could not agree with the view of the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole), who seemed to think
that by limiting the amount to be paid for refreshment to
a small sum, such as 25., all difficulty would be got over.
In many Cases it had therefore been the practice not to
make any payment at all—(hear)—but if a sum up to which
a candidate might go were named in an act of Parliament,
then every voter, who had on former occasions never looked
for a farthing, would consider himself entitled to a pay-
ment of 2s. (Hear.) It would be looked upou not as a
question of the candidate's generosity, but of the voter's
right. This he (Lord J. Russell) thought would be an un-
wise alteration in the existing rule ; at the same time he
thought the law as to refreshment ought to be made more
clear, and he should have no objection to making it clearer
by a declaration that payments for refreshments came
within the provision of the act against illegal treating.
Mr. W. A. WILKINSON suid, the only ground on
which an allowance to voters could be defended was, that
without that a number of voters' would be disfranchised ;
but the true remedy was to increase the number of polling
booths.
After a few words from several hon. members,
The committee divided, when there appeared—
For the clause
Against it
Majority
The clause was accordingly rejected
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the committo would consent
to take the remaining new clauses on the report. (No,
no.) They had thirty-eight orders of the day yet todis-
pose of, and as many of these orders related to bills of
pressing importance he trusted the committee would accede
to his proposal. (No, no.) Well, then, if the committee
would not they had better go on with the bill. (Hear.)
Mr. STANHOPE moved the insertion of a clause lega-
sing the issue of refreshment tickets, not exceeding the
value of 2s. eaob, to the voters at elections.
Mr. MICHELL said that there was a member of the
Government who he understood gave a public breakfast, as
it was called—but which was in reality IL dinner—at every
election.
The committee then divided, and the numbers were—
For the clause
1'26
Agaisnst it
142-16
Lord J. RUSSELL said that there were some clauses
yet to be considered, and some propositions to be made on
the report. He proposed that those clauses be proposed in
committee, and that the gentlemen who were charged with
them should postpone them until the report, and allow
the bill to be reported now, and take,' to-morrow (this
day), at 12 o'clock.

•••
- 104

, •
' After a few words from Mr. IRTONJ which were inaudible
in the gallery,
Lord J. RUSSELL remarked, that if the bill were to
be reported, the house would order it to be reprinted.
Mr. KNIGHTLEY moved that the chairman do report
progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Lord A. VANE said he had a very important clause in-
trusted to him, and he thought that the best course to be
adopted, was that the chairman should report progress,
and ask leave to sit again. They had been sitting since
12 o'clock at noon, and it was very hard upon hon. mem-
bers that they should be kept for so long a time upon this
bill. He should second the motion.
Mr. V. SMITH remarked that, in the course of the dis-
• cussion upon the last clause, it had been said that it was
absolutely necessary to settle this question. Some voted
for and some against the clause, but everybody said it
must be settled, and he should like to know whether any
hon. gentleman had any clause which was to settle it. It
was not settled whether travelling expenses were legal or
not; and it was necessary to bring forward some clause.
Sir F. KELLY said there was a clause which had been
printed these three days, which was calculated entirely to
settle the question, and if they now reported the bill, the
clause would be brought forward upon the report.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it impossible for him to
propose a clause upon the matter, not knowing whether
the house would allow travelling expenses or refreshments;
but as soon as the house came to a decision, he should be
ready to propose a clause. He wished to go on with the
bill, soas to be able to send it up in conformity with the
resolntionof the House of Lords. The bill might be taken
again on Saturday.
Mr. NEWDEGATE wished, as the clause had been very
I much altered, that the hill should be reprinted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wished to know whether
it would be reprinte I until it had bean reported upon.
The CHAIRMAN said that until the bill had been re-
, ported, it could not be reprinted.
Mr. WALPOLE thought that the object of the hon.
member would be best attained by allowing the bill to be
now reported, because it could not be reprinted until it
had been reported.
Lord J. RUSSELL said if the bill should not be re-
printed by that time; he would not propose to consider it
tomorrow at 12 o'clock.
Lord GALWAY understood that the bill could not be
reprinted until it had been reported; but how was it that
the Oxford Bill had been reprinted four or five times ?
Mr. BRIGHT said he understood that bills must be
sent up to the other house by the 25th instant, in confor-
mity with an order made by that house
Lord SEYMOUR inquired when the third reading was
to take place ?
Lord J. RUSSELL proposed that it should be taken
at twelve o'clock on Monday. (Oh, oh.) After the 25th
July, the Lords would not take any bill sent up. He
must s.ty there was some ground for this resolution of the
-Lords--not to read any b'.ll a second time after the 25th
July—in the practice -svhich.find • prevailed for some year