The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-27 00:00:00

CONTINUANCE BILL.

On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. H. BERKELEY moved the third readi"g of
this i,iil Vois day s X weeks. (Hear, hear) He ridi-
culed the provisions of the bill, and said that instead of
putting down corruption it would pre-erve it. The
bill had been introduced without due consideration, and
was no other than waste paper. The honourable
member quoted from authorities, e•pecially that
of Mr. Ul.b?rt, Parl.ainentary agent, to show
that the Currant Practices Act had failed
in Fitting down bribery and corrupt practices. (Hear,
hear.) He believed that under this bi!l, when a general
election came, the real contest between Lord Doodle
and Sir Thomas Noodle would be sovereigns and beer.
Mr. A. SMITH opposed the bill.
Mr. WHITESIDE supported the bill.
Lord A. CECIL considered the provisions of the bill
would unnecessarily increase to a great extent the ex-
penses of elec,ions.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE regretted the Lords bad not
rejected this bill. Had they done so they would have
greatly promoted purity of election. He considered the
effect of the bill would he to retard the ballot for many
years to come
After some further discussion,
Lord I. RUSSELL regretted the course that had
been taken with reference to this measure. If the bill
bad been referred to a select_ committee, some means
might have been devised by which the question as to the
cost of conveyance might have been satisfactorily settled.
Mr. Roil:mum and Mr. REID opposed the bill on the
grcund that it legalised corruption.
Mr. WALPOLE said he had omitted clause 4 of the
bill that the measure might be simply a continuance one.
The object of this bill was to settle the disputed points
—especially that in the case of Cooper v. Slade—relative
to the conveyance of voters to and from the poll. The
Government wished to settlethat point, and they would
early next session prepare a measure of a permanent
character. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. STAPLETON opposed the bill.

The house divided,
For the third reading
For the amendment 6O
Majority
Tho bill WWI then read a third time.
Mr.B. OSBORNE explained that the rea;on why the
opposition threw out the clause from Lords.T. Russell's
bill of 1854 f,,r legalising travelling expenses was that it
was opposed to the opinion of all the great legal autho-
rities of the Lords. Lord Mansfield had ruled that the
payment of travelling expenses was bribery, and that
ruling had never been contravened. He could not
understand why the bill had been brought forward in
its present shape. He began by opposing the present
Government, and he ended by giving them a cordial
support. He gave great credit to the right bon• gentle-
man the leader of the house for the ab 6 and judicious
manner in which he had conduo ed the business, and
the very important reforms he bad originated, and be
believed it was only that his time bad been too much
occupied that he had allowed this bill to be brought for-
ward with this first clause in it. He hoped the Govern.
went would pause before they cemented to it even now,
at this last stage. The result would be that every
voter would demand to be conveyed to the poll, ex-
penses would be enornsou-ly increased, and they would
soon come back to the old system of bribery and cor-
ruption which tkey had laboured so hard and so long to
put an end to. He ehoull take a division against the
pas,ing of the bill.
Lord H. VANE supported the bill, and urged that
unle s travelling expenses were allowed they would, in
effect, disfranchise the poor voters. He bad voted, 11
.m.istake, in the last division with his bon. friends near
him—(a lAugh)—ha should novv have the opportunity of
repairir.g big by voting apint them.
Sir J. TRELAAVNY remarked that_thi y could not
have a better test of the qualifications of the voter than
his going up to the poll without assistance. He 'Tom-