PARLIAMENTARY.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3906, 6 July 1881, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY.

(Pee Peess Association.)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ?Eveniag Sitting,

The House resumed at 7.30, In the debate upon the Corrupt Prac- . tices Prevention Act, the Government stated that a clause was in course of preparation, and would be moved in Committee, prohibiting candidates from spending money on elections, .unless the same passed through the hands of a party specially appointed by Government to supervise such expenditure. Amendments from the late Imperial Act on the subject would also be introduced. Mr Wood contended that they should follow the English practice pure and simple, and prohibit all expenditure at elections. Ag the bill stood it only aitne^ at the expenditure incurred for corrupt purposes. ' Mr George pointed out that the bill as it stood, opened the door for a professed friend of a candidate to commit him in such a. way by incurring an expenditure as to vitiate his return. Mr Seymour thought the penalty of perpetual disqualification too severe. Mr Sanhders complained that the bill, as it.stood, was vastly inferior to a similar measure bj'oneht down by the Grey Go vernmenti _ the new clauses promised He Was hopeful that a change for the better would be brought about. t;Mt:JEok ajixpeated the introduction of a clausei prohibiting the opening of public Louses during poll hours. Mr Shepherd would approve of the bill if assimilated to the English one. He thought the paid employment of electors by candidates should be absolutely prohibited, and he advocoted closing public * bousesMiile elections were proceeding. The bill was read a second time. THE BIGUXATION OP ELECTOBS BILL. The Regulation of Electors Bill was further considered "in committee. On clause 58, Mr George moved an addition to the clause providing that, in the event of members taking office in the Government, then such member shall return for re-election by his constituents, provided thai, , vii case of anew Ministry being formed, such re-election shall not be necessary. * Mr Wood moved that the proviso exempting a new Ministry from re-election be struck out. ■ Messrs Johnston" and Hall oppposed both proposals. Mr Beeves supported the amendment. Mr Collins Opposed it, as it was not demanded by the country. Mr Weston opposed the amendment. 'as with triennial parliaments, it was unnecessary,

Mr Wallis also opposed the amendment.

The Hon. J. Hall demurred to the doctrine that constituences had a right to aignify whether a man should take office, or not. He strongly opposed Mr G-eorge's proposal. Mr Leve9tam also opposed it. He thought constituencies were generally only too glad to have their representative in the Ministry, and relegating Ministers to them for re-election was quite ntßnecesiary. ' Mr Wood's amendment to make Mr George's apply to new ministers was negatived on the voices, and Mr George's amendment in its original form was lost on a division of 36 to 14. Ayes: Ballance, DeLautour, Fisher, J. T. (Heathcote), George, Montgomery, Reeves, Shrimski, Speight, Swanson, Tewbioro, Tole, Turnbull, and Wood. Noes, 36 : Allwright, Bain, Bastings, Beetham, Bo wen, Bryce, Bnnny, Colbeck, Collins, Fox, Gibbs, Hall, Hirst, H. (Wallace), Hursthouse, Johnston, Levestam, Mason, McCaughau, McDonald, Murray, Rollestoa, Saunders, Shanks, Shephard, Studholme, Sutton, Thomson, Tornoana, Trimble, Wakefield,,Wallis, Weston, WMtaker, Whyte, Wright. The remaining clauses passed as printed, and a number of new clauses were added to the bill, which Wa3 reported as amended.