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

tendon of her Majesty's Government to introduce, in the
present session, any measure founded thereon ?
Sir G. C. LEWIS said the report was printed, and he
thought hon. members should be in possession of its con-
tents before the Government, introduced any.

reference to it. .
EXPEDITION TO CHINA.
Kr. 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
passed 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 the 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
lolled 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 assented
to, as he had before stated, by the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty.

Mr. S. HERBERT, who arrived while the conversation
was going on, said holed no objection to the hon. member
having the information he desired; but it was obviously in-
expedient to make apublic 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-
able length, te-morrow evening, that the house would indulge
him by allowing its postpenement 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 Secretary-for Foreign Affairs would lay on the
table the commereial 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 elec-
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 b render the measure more
efficient ho would propose that revising banisters 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 than by 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 meetcases'of the ap-
plication of money which, thoughapplied 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-
sumed 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. Bat it was possible, no
doubt, for some member of the family of the candidate to
apply his own money,. unknown to the candidate, for thu
purposes of bribeiy. 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 forlegal inquiry had passed
away, and many gentlemen under such circumstances Alt
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, purpoee 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
net, 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
ineurre,l -There•wae, no doubt, another way in which this
act might be evelled. 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 coeruption. Such a case had happened,
but he would endeavour to frame a provision giving larger
powers to the auditor to examine carefully every item, and
.0 see all the vouehers, and providing a declaration for
agents for election expenses, which would render it impos-
sible for them to leave applied one shilling of money in an
illegal manner without subjecting them to the penalties of
perjury. The aft Of 1854 had not been altogether a failure,
but there was no'kenalty 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 investgatiou
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
t, refer was, as to the means of ensuring the prosecution and
punishment of otetiders:' From a variety of muses, 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 propoied 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
he saw any reason for supposing that 'corrur' t practices had
been resorted to, hold a court, to which he mightv summon
candidates, their regents, gents, and friends, and any personin investigation.
He giving evidence upon the subject under ti
He might make a special report which would come unl.
r
the eyes of the Attorney-General and the Speaker. Under
those circumstances it would be impossible for an election
auditor n
trot to he 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 bon. and learned gentleman concluded by for-
mally moving for leave to introduce the bill.
- Sir F. GOLDSMID was of opinion that the bill was not
calculated to suppress bribery. To put downbribery by the
application of some punishments was to return to principles
half a century old. The penalties inflicted by this bill went
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-
cause no time was fixed when the accounts should be sent
in, and the consequence was many election petitions were
disposed of before the auditor had sent in his report. The
revising barrister of the district was to be the election audi-
tor of the borough. Well, then, he must be übiquitous,
for there might be several boroughs in his district, the
elections for which might be proceeding simultaneously.
By another provision, the revising barrister, generally a
young man, was constituted a grand 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 apo-
theosis for a young barrister to find himself appointed a
grand innuisitor.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. (Heir, 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
c'erenption to a select committee. In every bill brought for-
ward there was some provision thatwas pertinent ; and why,
then, 'elect it because it happened to contain others not so
generally acceptable 9
Mr.pointed to the employment of professional
gentlemen at elections,Those gentlemen might say they
received retainers, that is to say, remuneration for the
exercise of their tnvn franchises and for inducing others to
;7heerc(,ieeloutheeesireter; called them bribes. (Hear, hear.)
profess,'onel men at elee"tiloon had placed the employment of
trusted provision would oa In a most glaring light. He
gentlemen, into the bill prohi-
biting p refeeeioree
nevheee services were. rentu.
iterated. from voting at elections, u, except under the heaviest
petaittes., (Hear, heAr.)
Mr. CI :A V ivoiddei squire from every candidate and front
e very tw... 1,; ,er derlar it ion that neiti.v-r 1-,ef,re e. after the
,
4.1; ( rvists Ityr iy(tireet iy, hau he'lnit•lo
Jit,l' Make. re3pollN:6lltii'7elf 1.17(M.r
11":14 hilt legal, :tad .
:r is
beets
b 'fore the election- auditor.lf tltnt -
flut ei cc t it)Tl :1;I(1 it Or would secs rte dung, the
tle a reality.
a -; then cis (ei. to mtreduce the bill. -
I N DI A N ;FINANCES.

fizn(tti.,

"SITAILT rose to wove the apv,intinent of '
.e ttconiu dace for the consideration of certain questions•
of India. The' first question had
referen co h. the civil •2rvice of India ; and his object was to
ascerraf II -bother it was still practicable to introduce a new
civil se rvie, -t upon a cheaper footing. Ho was unwilling, of
course,, ten leddle with the salaries of existing incumbents,
and, in 'deed, the practidabflity of placing the civil service at
any tin 11 upo. a a cheaper footing was exceedingly doubtful.
TO dr odr would give rise to discontent and bitterness; .and
I
ew on d venture to say that if the reductions were made,
r cler ewe re not fifty Indian civilians that would not pray for
kshi ps at home. Already they failed to procure candi-
da+
xs fo r the medical service; and it was easier to procure
a Aotail tation to the civil service in India than to a clerk-

to the firtan