The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--(YESTERDAY.)
EXPEDITION TO CHINA.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD moved the adoption of an address
for a return of the military forces of all arms under orders
to proceed or on their way from this country to her Majesty's
East Indian territories, or the colonies, to China, and
similar return as to the naval forces.
The return having been moved for as "'unopposed" was
pasied without remark, when
Lord J. RUSSELL, asked whether the sanction of the
Government had been asked and received ?
Mr. S. FITZGERALD said that the Secretary to the
Admiralty had agreed to his portion of the returns moved
for, and he understood from the Secretary to the Treasury
that there was ,no objection to ple rest of it.
Lord J. RUSSELL.—I must say I think it is entirely
without precedent that such a return should be moved for
without the Secretary of State for War being asked whether
he had no objections. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. FITZGERALD said he was quite willing to
defer the returns as to the military forces, so that the
Secretary of State for War might be consulted, if it were
desired. -The return for the naval forces had been asse;
to, as he had before stated, by the Secretary to the Ac, s .

rally. s
Mr. S. RERBERT, who arrived while the conversation
was going on; said he had no objection to the hon. member
having the information he desired; but it was obvionslyine
expedient to make a public return of the strength of a hos-
tile expedition. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman had
seen the general order giving the number of regiments pro-
ceeding to China, and he must say he thought it would be
very inconvenient to publish the return asked for. (Hear,
hear.)
ILLNESS OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE
• EXCHEQUER.
In reply to Lord W. LENNOX,
Lord PALMERSTON said that he hoped if his right,
hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not suffi-
ciently recovered his strength to be enabled to enter on his
financial statement, which Must necessarily be of consider-
ableleztgth, te-morrow evening, that the house would indulge
him by allowing its postponement until Monday. (Hear)
However, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able
to bring the budget forward to-morrow evening, his noble
friend the Lecretary for Foreign Affairs would lay on the
table the commercial treaty with France. (Hear, hear.)
• BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Sir•F. KELLY moved for leave to bring in a bill for the
prevention of bribery, and to amend the Corrupt Practices
Prevention Acts (1854). The hon. and learned member
having referred to the defects of the existing law, con-
tended that the payment of expenses through an ela-
tion auditor would remedy the evil at present complained of,
if properly carried out. He proposed' in the present bill to
introduce provisions so stringent as would effectually pre-
vent any corrupt practices on the part of election agents or
election auditors. In order to render the measure more
efficient he would propose that revising barristers should be
the election auditors. The reports of the recent bribery
commissions showed that large sums, which were intended
to be applied for other purposes, were used for bribery, but
if this measure had been in operation it would have been
almost impossible that money could be so applied. The re-
port showed that a candidate placed a sum of £l,OOO or
£2,000 into the hands of an unknown person, who went
down from London to an election under an assumed name,
and the money passed through different channels into the
hands of those who were ready to receive payment for their
votes; but the individuals named in these reports--and it
appeared that they were individuals of high character and
position—would be unlikely to ,expose themselves to the
consequence of a violation of the law if they found that
they. were subjecting themselves thereby to a disgraceful
punishment. The first provision of the bill was introduced
with the intention that every candidate should make a de-
claration that he never had paid, and never would pay,
directly, or indirectly, any sum of money for any purpose of
the election, except through the election auditor. It had
been suggested that to discountenance bribery it was neces-
sary to turn against it the current of public opinion, and to
make it a disgraceful crime, and this could not be more
effectually done thanby rendering it impossible for a candi-
date to be a party to bribery without incurring the
punishment and disgrace of perjury, and, in addition to the
ordinary penalties for bribery, this bill provided that any
candidate guilty of a violation of the declaration should be
held for ever after incapable of sitting in the house, or of
holding any Government or municipal office. There was
also a provisionin the bill calculated to meetcasestof the ap-
plication of money which, though applied without the know-
ledge and sanction of the candidate, passed from the hand
of some relative or friend, or of a member of some political
club to be applied for the purposes of bribery. This clause
made it a misdemeanour for any person to pay or apply
any money whatever for the purposes of an election,
except through the election auditor, and he believed
that this would effectually meet the case. He as-
subeed that the candidate was incapable of violating
his oath, and he assumed also that no person pretending to
any position would be a party, after the passing of the bill,
to the application of any money for election purposes ex-
cept through the election auditor. But it was possible, no
doubt, for some member of the family of the candidate to
apply his own money, unknown to the candidate, for the
purposes of bribery. They must remember, however, that
the offence was now often committed by a person who ap-
plied his own money to the purpose, and sent in his claim
to the candidate, when the time for legal inquiry had passed
away, and many gentlemen under such circumstances felt
themselves bound in honour to make the payment, so that
at last the money of the candidate was paid for the purpose
of bribery. But he need not say that if a candidate had
made oath that he had never paid, and never would pay,
money for the purpose of his election, except through the
auditor, the answer to the claimant would be that he could
not pay the amount without being foresworn. They would
not, he believed, find these zealous friends when there was
no prospect of repayment, and when by application of money
for purposes of bribery the penalties of misdemeanour were
incurred.. There was, no doubt, another way in which this
act might be evaded. It might be that the agents ap-
pointed under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act might
put down certain sums as payable to themselves for election
expenses, contenting themselves with a small portion of the
money, and applying the remainder to bribery or some
other species of corruption. Such a case had happened,
but he would endeavour to frame a provision giving larger
powera to the auditor to examine carefully every item, and
Lo see all the vouchers, and providing a declaration for
agents for election expenses, which would render it impos-
sible for them to have applied one shilling of money in an
illegal manner without subjecting them to the penalties of
perjary. The act of 1854 had not been altogether a failure,
but there was no penalty imposed sufficient to deter per-
sons from violating the law. He had provided that re-
vising barristers should be the election auditors ; provision
was also made for a complete and systematic investgation
of accounts, and he believed it would be impossible, wfth
the machinery of this measure in operation, that money
could be illegally applied. The only point to which he had
to refer was, as to the means of ensuring the prosecution and
punishment of offenders. From a variety of causes, bribery
was concealed in some cases, perhaps from fear of retalia-
tion, and in others on account of the expense of prosecuting.
Now, what he proposed was that the election auditor should,
within a certain time after every election, if he thought fit,
upon any information he might have received, or upon facts
that had come before him in the discharge of his duties, if
hesa w any reason for supposing that corrupt practices had
been resorted to, hold a court, to which he might summon
candidates, their agents, and friends, and any person capable
of giving evidence upon the subject under investigation.
He might make a special report which would come. under
the eyes of the Attorney-General and the Speaker. Under
those circumstances it would be impossible for an election
auditor not to be aware of the prevalence of bribery at an
election, and then, of course, the Attorney-General would
be able to prosecute even without instructions from that
house. The hon. and learnedgen tle concluded by for-
mally moving for leave to introduce ttli,il.
Sir F. C4OLDSMID was of opinion that the bill was not
calcufated to suppress bribery. To put downbribe ry by the
application of some punishments was to return to principles
half wentcies
half a century old. The penalties inflicted by this bill
beyond public opinion. The more effectual way of
proceed-
ing would be, where bribery was proved and there was no
recriminatory case, to give the seat to the defeated candidate.
In that way they might secure having honest men as can-
didates without the chance of their being implicated in
bribery. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. E. JAMES pronounced the provisions of the bill im-
practicable, and hoped they would be reviewed. One fatal
objection to the bill was that it adopted the plan of election
auditors, a plan that had entirely failed. It had failed be-
(*UM no time was fixed when the accounts should be` ent
in, and the consequence was many election petitions ere
disposed of before the auditor had sent in his report. The
ilevising barrister of the district was
hto
must be the election audi-
tor of the borough. Well, then, e be ous,
for there might be several boroughs in his district, flee
elections for which might be proceeding, simultaneously.
By another provision, the revising barrister, generally a
young man, was constituted a rand inquisitor, and power
was given to him to grant a warrant which might run over
the whole of the United Kingdom in cases where he had to
decide whether the law had been infringed. What an
nth for a young barrister to find himself appointed a
grand inquisitor to sit over electoral corruption. (A laugh.)
Mr. CROSS declared that bribery would never be done
away with until the employment of paid messengers and
canvassers was got rid of. (He tr, hear.)
Mr. G. DENMAN thought it was premature to discuss
the bill, but deprecated the notion of postponing legislation
by a reference of the several bills on the subject of electoral
corruption to a select committee. In every bill brought for-
ward there was someprovision that was pertinent ; and why,
then, reject it because it happened to contain others not so
generally acceptable?
Mr. MALINS pointed to the employment of professional
gentlemen at elections. Those gentlemen might say they
only received retainers, that is to say, remuneration for the
exercise of their own franchises, and for inducing others to
ex,,
r else theirs • but he called them bribes. (Hear, hear.)
The Gloucester Commission had placed the employment of
professional men at elections in a most glaring light. He
provisiontrusteaparof
es
Iwould be introduced into the bill prohi-
biting
nerated, from voat gentlemen,, whose services were remu-
yenalties. (Hear,
ata elections, except under the heaviest
Mr. CLAY • ue r.)
require.fro
cs cry menibee a declaratierethatneeivtehrLt
ean_
before_ s candidate
-else Li nprindirectlraanfdt after from
had he made himself respon-
tNible. nor would ho make himself responsible, for any ex-
penditure which was not legal, which had not been
;brought before the election auditor.and
fano.; bf the election auditor would If that
e a wasdone,
reality.the
Leave was then gis en to introduce the bill.
INDIAN FINANCES.
Mr. VAIN•SITART rose to move the appointment of a
:select cdatUrAtee for the consideration of certain questions
iceinting.to th. 3 finances of India. The first question had
reference to thrr civil service of India ;and his object was to
seecei.fain whether it was still practicable to introduce a new
civil service upon a cheaper footing. He was unwilling, of
Aourse, to meddle *ilia the salaries of existing
civil service at
and, indeed, the practicability
ste.7 time upon a cheaper footing was exceedingly doubtful.
To do so would give rise to discontent and bitterness ; and
he w. euld venture to say that if the reductions were made,
there, were not fifty.lndian. civilian.s that Would not pray for
cilerksh ips at home. Already they failed to procure candi-
""1"101 %the medical.servipp;, and it was easier to procure
nomina Lion to the civil service in. India than to a clerk-i