The Press.
London, England, 1857-08-15 00:00:00

THE ELECTION PETITIONS.

THE Ministerialists asserted that the results
of the election petitions would be to increase
the majority possessed by them. Such has
nut been the result. Of the fifty-one peti-
tions only twenty-five were investigated ;
thirty-three members were obliged to defend
their seats, of whom nine were unseated. The
final balance cannot yet be made up, as com-
missions of inquiry have been issued in sonic
instances.

Two general considerations have been
mooted from the working of the committees in
the present session. It has been said that
there has been a remarkable variance in the
conduct of different committees with respect
to the important point of the responsibility of
candidates for the acts of their agents. It
would be improper for a public writer to im-
peach the conduct of any particular com-
mittee, as, to do so properly, a due considera-
tion of the whole evidence offered should be
attentively weighed. We have seen that some
of the Liberal organs have been extremely
wrath with the decision of the Yarmouth Corn-
inittee in unseating Mr. TORRENS M.Cuttaeit
and Mr WATK!N. They have pointed to other
cases where candidates have not been held
responsible for their agents. But we have
little doubt that the committee were swayed
by the fact of one of the ejected members
having been in close communication with one
of the parties who transacted the Coppocking
part of the election processes at Yarmouth.
That there was gross bribery at Yarmouth
cannot be denied, and electioneering " organi-
sation " (to give it the mildest word) had been
carried far in that particular borough.
On the other hand, we observe that the
Liberals have been silent about the decision
of the Wareham Committee. We shall not
now impeach that decision; but if we were at
liberty to offer an opinion about it, we should
say that the Wareham case had peculiar
claims for a rehearing. In the Oxford case
Mr. NEATE was unseated for the extravagant
number of his stipendiaries; and although a
discretion must be allowed in these matters,
we think that the decision WaS a sound one.
On the important point of travelling expenses
the Cambridge Committee followed the de-
cision of the Courts in the case of " Cooper v.
Slade." A promise to pay travelling expenses,
and a subsequent payment, is not illegal,
provided that the promise be unconditional ;
but such a promise in payment would be
illegal, if conditional, in the giving of a vote
to a particular candidate. We fear that under
the operation of this rule there may be great
abuses. It gives, many facilities for corrup-
tion ; but in the counties, if we are to take the
Statements of the " Liberals," it is not comp-
Lon that is to be feared.

On this latter point a subsidiary question
as to its application may hereafter arise. In
large urban constituencies like Lambeth or
Finsbury, it is extremely difficult to get people
to go the poll at all. We fear that under
cover of this rule, " expenses " will be gra-
dually made to cover " loss of time," " absence
'from shop," &e. &c., and a whole class of voters
analogous to the notorious " longshoremen "
in the City of London will gradually be dere-
loped. Still, there is a strong prima facie
ground that in counties and in extensive con-
stituencies the legitimate expenses of a voter
should be paid. And yet there is another side
to the question ; for ought not every voter be
presumed to be so independent as that he
should not be subservient to any candidate on
the ground of expenses? To confer votes on
persons who cannot afford to go to the poll
does look like a political absurdity. Wailing