The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-16 00:00:00

THE INDIA HOUSE,

Col. SYKES gave notice that, en the motion for the ad-
journment of the house on Friday, he would ask if there
was any truth in the report of the removal of the business
of the East India House to the Victoria Hotel ; that some
of the manuscripts of the East India House were to be
destroyed, and if so, what steps will be adopted to provide
premises for the East India Company ?
CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT
(l 854) AMENDMENT BILL,.
Mr. MELLOR, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said that, since the introduction of the measure, he
had received letters from different parts of the country, not
only sympathising with the principle of the bill, but ap-
proving of its provisions. He had already explained the
nature of the bill, and he would not detain the 'attention of
the house at any considerable length. In the first place, he
would state that he proposed to give a certain amount of dis-
cretionary power to judges in dealing with parties convicted
of having received bribes or offered bribes, by which the
maximum punishment to be inflicted for such offences should
be six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Seine con-
sidered that his bill did not go far enough in dealing with
these offences, and that it should have been rendered more
stringent in regard to those who were proved to have been
guilty of bribery; but the fact was that in many cases a
trap was laid for those who were induced to offer bribes,
and therefore in some instances the party receiving the
bribe was the more criminal party, and consequently should
suffer the severest punishment. The judge would
be able, from the complexion of the case, to
decide between the respective degrees of the criminality
of parties charged with those offences, and therefore to
inflict the proper punishment. He then alluded to the re-
cent case of attempted bribery at Norwich, is which a town
councillor was offered a sum of £5OO to induce hint to vote
for an alderman of the borough. To show that an altera-
tion in the existing law was requisite, when an inquiry
into the circumstances was ordered, one of the persons
called on to give Evidence refused to do so because it
would tend to criminate himself. He believed he
was correct in stating that there was a feeling on both
sides of the house that something should be done by Par-
liament in order to remedy what was an apparent and
serious evil. He did not propose his bill as a final mea-
sure, but merely as a provisional one, which would have the
effect of repressing the evil. (Hear, hear.) He referred
to the committee appointed to inquire into the elections at
Gloucester and Wakefield, in the latter of which boroughs
a large amount of money was proved to have been ex-
pended in direct bribing, in hiring bands of ruffians to
intimidate the electors, and in beer and spirits to corrupt
the voters. He proposed by his bill that no candidate
should be allowed to pay election expenses, other than
those excepted by the existing Act of Parliament, and that
any money expended for election purposes should be paid
through the medium of an election agent and election. audi-
tor. He did not approve of the latter official, as he con-
sidered him at present little more than a useless machine ;
but he did not intend to deprive him of his func-
tions. Finally, he proposed to do away with paid
canvassers altogether, and he called on the house to accept
hie bill, which, if it was not final in its operation, would
have the effect of diminishing the evil which was a degra-
dation to the country.. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUNT approved of some of the provisions of the
bill, though he did not consider it an efficient measure as a

whOle. He contended that the evil which the bill proposed
to remedy would not be effectually suppressed unless mem-
bers of that house and candidates for election were prepared
to carry out the spirit and letteT of the laws passed by the
Legislature in reference to this subject.
Sir H. GOLDSMID oppose 4 several of the provisions of
the bill, and the principle it proposed of repressing bribery
by severe penal enactments, which experience had
shown to be fallacious. He referred to the history
of crimes in this country, to which severe punishments
were applied to support his proposition. ror instance,
capital punishment had failed to prevent the commission of
forgery, which was diminished by doing away with the cir-
culation of notes of small amount, which removed the
temptation to commit the offence. Again, in the case of
smuggling, the severest punishment hadi been found
inoperative as a repressing agency; but when there
was an alteration in the excise the offence was re-

duced, because its commission ceased to be profitable. The
hon, member then proceeded to argue in detail in suppers of
his proposition, that bribery, like other offences, was to be
prevented or repressed by removing the temptation to its
commission, rather than punishing it severely.
Mr. A. STEWART approved of the bill generally, but
considered that it would be desirable it should be referred
to a select committee. He disapproved of the provision
with respect to paid canvassers or messengers, as being
open to practical objection.
Mr. COLLIER defended the provision of the liiU whieb.
gave judges who tried cases, of bribery a discretionary power
as to the amount of punishment to be inflicted. Hon. mem-
bers in the house denounced bribery as a degrading, of-
fence, but their sincerity would be doubted so long
as they did not invest the judges of the land with power to
inflict on those committing it a degrading punishment.
(Hear, hear.) He approved also of the provision by which
money for election expenses should be paid only through
an election auditor, and he proposed to add that any person
infringing that provision should lose his seat. Having
expressed his approbation of other clauses of
the bill, he contended it would be desirable to
appoint a public prosecutor in cases of bribery.
He had introduced a bill last session by which a public pro-
secutor wl‘s proposed ,to be appointed in the case of offences
generally, by which prosecutions would be entrusted to a
public officer, and not left to the carelessness or malice of
private individuals. Some practical difficulty had been
encountered in the details of • the bill, but he thought
on several grounds that the proposal might be adopted
in the present instance, la which public morality
was concerned. He would support the second reading, but
thought the bill should be referred to a select eommittee of
the house.

Sir G. GREY said that he thought before legislating
on this subject there should be a most searching inquiry
into the operation of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act.
(Hear, hear.) He objected to the provision by which
severe punishment was to be inflicted on persons convicted
of bribery, because he believed the effect would
be to prevent juries convicting such offenders.
He approved of the indemnity to witnesses who gave
evidence, and it was owing to this indemnity they had ob-
tained such full disclosures in regard to Gloucester
inquiry and.
Wakefield. He was opposed to some of the other provi-
sions of the bill, and suggested that the he proposed
should precede the second reading. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MACAULAY also objected to the provision inflict-
ing severe punishment in cases of bribery, which he
believed would prove inoperative. He defended the ap-
pointment of election auditors, which had been designated
as nugatory, and believed that no case had been made out
against its continuance.
After a few words from Mr. M. MILNEs in favour of re-
ferring the bill to a select committee,
Mr. MELLOR said he would defer to the wish of the
house, and withdraw the motion for the second reading of
the bill.

The motion was then finally withdrawn.
Mr. E. JAMES moved that it be an instruction to the
committee to consider and report on the operation and effeet
of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854), and the
Acts continuing the same, and also upon, the operation
and effect of the Election Petitions Act (1848),
and whether any further measures are necessary
for the prevention of corrupt practices at elections.
He contended that the office of election auditor, as at pre-
sent constituted, was utterly. illusive and nugatory. He
called on the house to deal promptly and effectively with
the subject of corrupt practices at elections. In his opinion
the Government ought to take the matter into their own
hands, and bring forward some fitting measure, instead of
allowing the subject to be taken up by a private member.
Mr. KINGLAKE seconded the motion, and contended
the office of election auditor, which he considered had been
properly designated by the report of one of the late election
commissions as a mere screen,was not to protect, but to de-
ceive the public.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. Philips, Mr.
Pullen, Mr. W. P. Martin, Mr. Denby Griffiths, and other
hon. members took part,
The motion was 'agreed to.
ELECTION PETITIONS ACT (1848) AMENDMENT
BILL.
The second reading of this bill was postponed till Tues-
day next.
,ADULTERATION OF FOOD OR DRINK BILL.
On the motion of Mr. SCHOLEFIPL., this bill was read a
second time. ,

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILOL,er
Sir R. FERGUSON (on the reading rd of the
fseorlecgtoicongminintitotecoe,
dtoaya Sir E.
bens :—Mr. Cardwell, Sir R. Ferguson, ra
Lord J. Brown.,
committee moved
tf°ll2lfa-otti Ito
w i,;;Nnbg:alsreb:fneirermed-
Col.breville, Col. Dunne, Mr. F. Russell,
and Mr. Has.
Grogan, Col. French, Mr. H. Herbert, Lord C. Hamilton,
Mr. H. Hamilton, Mr. Hutt, Mr. Davison,
Berl—Agreed to.
EAD-UrgnS, BILL.
CHARITABLE was read a
ea to be committed next Wednesday
second time, and order
On the motionCHA
f
WAYS A
Ro TxtArß LH
AND MEANS.
The house then went into committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. LAING
to
Majestyt hat towards
forthe making geed the
supply granteddeficiency m the
rants for the service ot the year ended the 31st day of
giarch, 1859, the sum of L 407,649 be granted, out of the
Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Bri-
tain and Ireland.
The CHAIRMAN was ordered to report the reaolutione
and the house resumed.
VALUATION OF RATEABLE
TwEABLE PROPERTY
The report on thisu(b
s brought up, and leave wee
given to bring in a bill founded-on it.
MR. BALFE, THE IRISH MAGISTRATE.
Col. DUNNE moved for a copy of the commission for an
inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Balfe, a magistrate of the
county of Roscommon, accused of having committed a cri-
minal offence—together with the report of the commis-
sioners appointed to make the inquiry, and correspondence
connected therewith.
Mr. WHITESIDE seconded the motion.
Mr. CARDWELL entered into some explanations, after
which a discussion ensued.
The motion was agreed to.
ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.
Mr. BUTLER moved an address for & copy of all
correspondence that had taken plaee between, the Rev.
Bryan King, the vestry of St. George's-in-thri-East, and
the Bishop-of London, relative to the disturbances in the
parish church.—Ordered.
The house adjourned shortly after five o'clock.

We understand it is in contemplation to form an
additional military district in England, comprising some of
the Midland Counties.—•irmy and Navy Gazette.