The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-30 00:00:00

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.

Lord E. CECIL asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether it was
the intention of the Government to esta-
blish savings banks,annuity, and insurance offices wher-
ever money order
omexisted in the unitedee Kingdom;
savings banks offices already
intention of the mgdorn; and whether it was the
were
to raise the remuneration of
all postmasters who vie
savulg
willing. to undertake the man-
agement of money order,banks, and insurances
offices, with a view to an increase 8 of those o
out the country ? offices through-
The CHANCELLOR of the EXcgoEfQUER did not see
multi
the necessity for the introduction
multiplication of these
and 240
general measure with regard to the any sweeping or
offices. In 1865 300 savings banks
of
order
offices had been established, and at the end
he believed there were 3,500 money order offices a:dt year
savings banks, and 2,000 insurance offices in existence,
The question respecting. the salaries of the postmasters
had been settled by the authorities of the department
RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Mr. BUXTON asked the President of the Board of Trade
what the result had been of the official inquiry respecting
the railway accident thht occurred at the Caterham Junc-
tion, April 30, by which three lives were lost and several
persons were seriously injured ?
Mr. M. GIBSON said the report of Col. Yolland, the
Government inspector, would be laid on the table in a few
days. The summary of the report, however, watch t the
accident had resulted from the practice of starting ains by
hand signals, which practice bad been given up by the

London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway. A copy of
the report had that day been sent to the company.
THE LICENSING SYSTEM.
Mr. JAMES asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department whether it was the intention of the Govern-
ment to introduce during the present session a bill for
altering the system of licensing publichouses and beer-
houses, and for placing them upon an equality as regards
the sale of liquors.
Sir G. GREY said he had such a bill prepared, but as
the present state of public business .would render it impos-
sible to pass it this session, he did not therefore intend to
introduce it.
THE BANK OF ENGLAND.

In reply to Mr. ABROYD,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said in
England a far greater amount of business, with a less re-
serve, was transacted than in France. With respect to the
inquiry touched upon, he did not think that the present
time, which was within a fortnight of the return issued
by the Government with respect to the suspension of the
Bank Charter, and when the circumstances that had led
to thatproceeding were still to some extent in existence, was
the propermoment to say whether or when an inquiry of the
nature alluded to should take place.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Mr. H. VIVIAN moved resolutions to the effect that
persons found guilty of bribery should be henceforth dis-
qualified from exercising the franchise or sitting iu Parlia-
ment.

Mr. BAXTER moved an amendment, to the effect

that in any case where any voter is reported by an election
committee as having received a bribe the Attorney-General
be required to examine the evidence, and to prosecute the
persons who had offered or given the bribe, should the
evidence, in his opinion, be sufficient to render a convic-
tion possible.

Mr. POWELL, who had been a member of the Galway
Election Committee, spoke of the extreme corruption
which.had taken place at the last election. He thought
that if the subject was taken in hand with courage, firm-
ness, and ingenuity, a remedy for the evil might certainly
be found. _

Mr. OSBORNE said if he wanted any proof of the lan-
guid indifference with which the house treated questions
of bribery and corruption, he need not go farther than the
present evening. He would beg hon. members who had
lately been introduced to the house to mark the contrast
between yesterday evening when bribery -was brought for-
ward, and this evening when they wished to deal practi-
cally with it. The contrast was most marked. But at the
outset he must protest in the strongest language against
the insinuations which were thrown out by the hon.
member for Birmingham when he said any hon. gentle-
man who voted and was—
The SPEAKER called the hon. member to order, and
said it was contrary to the rules of the house to refer to
any debate of the present session.
Mr. OSBORNE—The hon. member stated the same
thing not in debate, but if he recollected rightly in a pas-
sage of his famous Primrose-hill letter, where he threw
aspersions upon every hon. member who voted for any-
thing but his favourite project. The reason why he voted
as he did last night was that he considered one of the
greatest evils of the constitution of this country was the
in sending members to Parlia-
actual prevalence of bribery
Parlia-
ment. They were about to try a very problematical expe
ri. it would
regard to the grouping of boroughs. He be-
lieved would prove highly problematical with regard
to the future expenses of elections. He was fortified in
that opinion by an old "whip" of that house, Sir William
H ayter, who said it would quadruple the expense of elec-
tions. (Hear, hear.) The time was come when they should
examine the whole electoral machinery with regard to a
revision of the law relating to bribery. He was not going
into the origin of bribery for members of Parliament,
although he had lately been looking into the history of it.
Mr. Cooke attributed the origin of bribery to the Whig
party. (Laughter.) Mr. Cooke said at the time bribery
was instituted the Tory party held all the land, and the
only way they could fight the intimidation which the Tories
exercised was fighting by means of the wealth which the
Whigs possessed. Tbey all knew that Sir Robert Walpole
used bribes with members of Parliament. Most men bad
their price ; but since that time the practice was changed,
and instead of the members getting the quid pro quo, the
electors received it. The same stanza written then held

good now :
" He who would gain the votes of British tribes,
Must add to force of merit force of bribes."

(Laughter.) It was well known it was vain to deal with
questions of bribery. Bribery had increased, was increas-
ing, and the question was how it could be diminished. It
could not be dealt with by the resolution of the hon.
member, nor by the amendment to that resolution. It
was part of the policy of the Government—he did not
mean the present Government, but English Governments
generally—to make the expense of a seat in Parliament as
high as possible. There was a great deal of insincerity
on the part of public men upon the subject; and the
policy of the day was to make that house a particular pre-
serve for rich men. One of these rich men went to the
honourable member for Lewos (Mr. Brand), or to the
honourable and gallant member for the county Dublin
(Colonel Taylor), their two respected and highly
venerated "whips," and said he wanted a seat. They
asked what money he had. (Laughter.) These were
facts. The rich man replied ho was prepared for a good
outlay. (Renewed laughter.) This rich capitalist then
went down perhaps with the meritorious feeling that he

was going to raise his fellow-cieatures in the social scale,
and a good many of them sought to raise their families and
get them into what they called good society. This capi-
talist went down and debauched the whole borough with
his lavish expenditure. Ho asked whether they were not
guilty of the most palpable insincerity and hyprocisy when
they came to talk of bribery in that house. Let them look
at the sums of monoy which members subscribed for local
purposes. He knew one member who paid £2,000 a year
for what he called charities and dinners. He knew another
member who paid £BOO, and when ho asked him why ho
did so, his answer was that he Nrould have no chance of
being returned without doing it. (Laughter.) They had
heard of the borough in East Lincolnshire referred to last
night, where 700 voters received £35 per head, which
amounted to £25,000. This was an instance of how the big
fish got through the net. He thought he had his eye upon
this particular borough, although he would not name it.
(A. laugh.) What was the abstract of the last election ?
Why, it was only £2,199 7s. 11d. That was the abstract
of the expenses where £25,000 were spent in bribery. That
was the career of a capitalist in this country. (Hear.) What
was the case in Ireland? He know a member of Parlia-
ment who told him he was afraid to go there, for it would
cost him £4OO to repair the east window of the chapel.
He saw by an old Irish Act of Parliament, the 35th of
George 111., sec. 19, that a member of Parliament was not
allowed to give any entertainment or any donation to
charities, or chapels, or anything else. Let them look at
the constitution of the house. He wanted to know how
peers were made, and why they were made. Englishmen
were in the habit of sneering at the Continent, and more espe-
cially at some Italian States, where] they said titles were

purchased, and where, if a man got a railway, he was

made a marquis. Take the "Peerage," turn over the
leaves, and look at the peerages which had been conferred
from Pitt to Palmerston. For what were they conferred?

For nothing more than that the mon who received them
were lavish of their money at elections. Let them look at
the Cortupt Practices Act. What was the use of it ? The
big fish broke through, and only the little fish were caught.
(Hear, hear.) They saw how it was always found that
though the rich man paid the money he was not cognisant
of it. How could a man spend money and not be cognisant
of it ? No candidate's legitimate expenses ought to exceed
£5OO. There had been 50 petitions for bribery this session,
but half of them did not come on. They were managed
behind Mr. Speaker's chair. ,The dirty business on one
side was set off against the equally dirty business on the
other. (A laugh.) He was long of opinion that while they
retained the present tribunal to judge of election petitions
those practices would continue. If they wished to get rid
of this social rinderpest they must get rid of the present
form of tribunal for trying election petitions. They might
employ the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or if
the house wished to keep the power in their own hands, it
might nominate a permanent committee, not of members,
but
of men qualified for the purpose, and who would try
cases on the spot. Another thing which he was inclined
t
of
electors a
advocate was the necessity of making penal the
beforecanvass-
ing
example and
aa these t
iu issuehi
gohf the
places,w r
it ( He
oeualrd,
hear.) Until the
not be expected that the poor man would feel it wrong to
abstain from the opportunity of putting
He had no faith in the amendment,pu
althoughmgmoney in his pocket.
he had in the
exertions of his hon. friend ; but le would promisehn that, if
he met with any encouragement from the a bill
should be drawn by which canvassing shouldusebe
in
penal, and the power of adjudicating upon election peti-
tionsade
withdrawn, once and for ever, from members
of that
honse. (Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the resolu-
tions, because the law was sufficiently strong as it at pre-
sent existed. 'To carry out the resolutions proposed it
would be necessary to pass an act of Parliament and ap-
point
new courts of justice, and although he did not dissent
from the spirit of the motion, he was not prepared to go to
this length until it was brought forward in a more com-
prehensive form, and for that purpose he would give the
subject serious consideration.
orted the resolutions, and
Mr. SCOURFIELD supported
thought that every person guilty
of bribery should be for
ever disfranchised.
Alderman LUSK was satisfied that the only effectual
way of preventing bribery was to adopt the ballot system.
The debate was carried on for some time by Mr. Smollett,
Mr. P. Urquhart, and Mr. Newdegate.
Mr. VIVIAN, taking into consideration the remarks of
the Attorney-General, ivould not divide the house on the
resolutions he had introduced, but trusted that at a future
time
and
eresolutions would be embodied in act of Parlia-
ment,isi w
r. introduced by the Government.
AX complained of the time wasted in bringing
forward motions„, h
the speeches of the'. then withdrawing them. He reviewed
which proved to him'''.
tahneous members during the debate,
prac-
tised. He proposed that extent to which bribery is
ore any gentleman took his
seat in the house he should
make declaration upon his
honour that, to the best of his knowledge, no more money

had been expended on his election than that which was re-
corded in his return. He was convinced that persons out-
side would say there was a want of earnestness on the part
of the Government.

Sir G. GREY defended the Government from any want
of diligence, but thought there was wisdom in the with-
drawal of the resolutions after the promise of the Attorney-
General to give the substance of them his earnest consi-
deration.

Sir G. BOWYER said that, in the many discussions
which he had heard on the subject of bribery, it had
always struck him that no one had considered the reason
of the real difficulty of the question. The real difficulty
was that the offence of bribery belonged to that class in
which there was no one to complain except a third party,
who had great difficulty in ascertaining the fact, and pro-
bably still greater difficulty in proving it. Another diffi-
culty was that the offence of bribery cast no sort of slur on
those who were guilty of it. It had been suggested that
Parliament should declare the offence disgraceful; but that
was impracticable, because it would be legislating for
opinion. Prosecuting an unfortunate voter, and making an
example of him, did no good at all. The rule of disfran-
chising a borough where malpractices had existed was very
hard, because a portion of good men were disfranchised.
The best way, in his opinion, to deal with the subject
would be to impose a proportionate punishment, and to
make the member declare upon oath what he had expended.
If it was shown that he had expended anything beyond a
tariff of fair and reasonable expenses, calculated according
to the size of the borough, he should then be held to have
been guilty of bribery. He was to some extent a believer
in the ballot, which would very much discourage bribery,
and render it much more difficult. To put an end to it
altogether he believed was impossible. He thought the
time had come to deal with the question sincerely and
boldly, and every proposal which tended to put a stop to
bribery and corruption ought to be favourably considered
by the House.
The subject they dropped. '
On Mr. WHALLEY rising to propose a motion in con-
nexion with Roman Catholic lotteries,

The house was counted, and not 40 members being pre-
sent, the house adjourned.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.

LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN.

The adjourned Wharncliffe meeting of this com-
pany was held yesterday at the Euston Station
Mr. Brown-Westhead in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN said the first bill he had to sub-
mit was conferring additional powers on the Lon-
don and North-Western Railway Company in re-
lation to their own undertakings and the undertak-
ings of other companies. The bill had been ap-
proved at a former meeting, but subsequently cer-
tain clauses relating to the Aylesbury and Bucking-
ham Railway had been struck out, and, therefore,
it was necessary in its alterated state, he should
submit it again to the shareholders.
A formal resolution approving the bill was then
agreed to.
The next was a bill for vesting the undertaking
of the Cockermouth and Workington, Railway
Company in the London and North-Western Rail..
way Company.
The Solicitor read the heads of the bill, from
which it appeared that the London and North-
Western Company were to pay the interest on the
preference shares and debentures, and a dividend
on the ordinary shares of the Cockermouth Com-
pany at the rate of 7 per cent. for the year 1866,
and of 8 per cent. for 1867, of 9 per cent. for 1868,
and at the rate of 10 per cent. in subsequent years.
The bill was approved.
The CHAIRMAN then moved that a bill be ap-
proved for vesting the undertaking of tbe White-
haven Junction Railway Company, and for con-
ferring upon the last-named company running
powers over the Whitehaven and Furness Junction
Railway. The company were to pay the interest
on the debentures and preference shares, and to
guarantee a dividend of 10 per cent. per annum on
the ordinary shares of the Whitehaven Junction
Company.

Mr. WILLIAMS protested against guaranteeing
high rates of interest on such lines. The London
and North-Western ran all the risk of contingen-
cies and the uncertainty of realising the amount
guaranteed.
A SHAREHOLDER said he came further north than
Mr. Williams, and knew it was necessary for them
to secure allies in working traffic in connection with
their Lancaster and Carlisle Railway. The White-
haven Junction line had already earned and paid
much higher dividends than 10 per cent.
The bill was approved.

A bill was then approved for conferring further
powers on the Great Western Railway Company in
relation to their own undertaking and the under-
takings of other companies. The main clauses, so
far as this company was concerned, referred to the
Hereford and Shrewsbury line, and gave power to
the North Western Company to enter into traffic
arrangements in respect of the Tenbury line.
The next was a bill to incorporate the Harborne
Railway Company, and to authorise the making of
the Harborne Railway. The bill which authorised
traffic agreements with the company was then
approved.
The CHAIRMAN submitted a bill for conferring
further powers on the South Staffordshire Railway
Company with respect to their capital. The North
Western Company had provided a considerable por-
tion of additional capital for that undertaking,
which they leased at 4i per cent., and the object of
the bill was to enable them to guarantee a rate of
interest on £2oo,ooo,Which would make it available
for the purposes of the company.
A resolution approving the bill was agreed to, and
the meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, the 6th
June.