The Hon. T. W. HISLOP moved the second reading of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Bill. He thought the House would agree that in some respects the Corrupt Practices Act was deficient, and he had preferred certain amend ments to remedy those defects. He detailed tho various amendments, which were embodied in the present bill. The principal alteration made dealt with the election expenses of a candidate, and it was provided that within 28 days after the day of election the agent of a candidate shall make a return to that candidate in writing of all expenses incurred in the manage ment of the election, failing which he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £50. There were several other points in the bill which could be dealt wifcb in committed.
Mr HUTCHISON objected that the bill con taiued no provision agaiust^the offence known ns bribery at common law. '.The omission was pos sibly significant, as under this bill a candidate might, so to speak, sow ground bait for weeks and monthsi beforehand. The bill also created such a diversity of contingent offences, that any candidate m%ht find himself involved in a per fect multitude of indictments. The notice to be given to a candidate of the actions to be proved against him was not sufficient in a colony like this, where communication was often so un certain.
Mr SAMUEL did not see they should go to the length to which they wished to go in pre venting the carriage of electors to and from the poll, and he saw no necessity whatever for sucb a bill as this. He also saw no reason why they should givo further facilities to unsuccessful candidates in persecuting successful ones.
