The Express.
London, England, 1866-09-15 00:00:00

HIGH WATAK AT LONDON BRIDGE.

Tao 1)5;L1104;i5& set 2555 ----Attamse67 5h Ma
To-Moagow—llocalne, 6b. Ws Atterboos„ Ob. Max

LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 15.

A FRENCH view of English bribery is as inte-
resting novelty among the countless home specu-

lations which the disclosures of the Election Com-
missions at Yarmouth, Totnes, Reigate, and Lan-
caster
have elicited. It is instructive now and
then to see ourselves as others see us ; and it is
a pleasant surprise to find that the impression
which we make upon them is by no means so un-
favourable as the misgivings of an uneasy con-
science had led us to anticipate. During the
past month, England has been making open
confession of her political sins, and doing pub-
lic penance for them. She has, metaphorically
speaking, clothed herself in sackcloth and heaped

dust and ashes upon her head. And now a
friendly casuist tells her that she exaggerates her
fault ; that what she has bewailed as a mortal sin
is only a venial peccadillo; and that even her
vices are less vicious than those of her neighbours.
National self-love would in any case powerfully
predispose a people to this lenient view of its
errors ; but when the doctrine comes recommended
by the high authority of M. PREVOST-PAILADOL,
the temptation to accept it is much strengthened.
M. PBEVOST-PARADOL is the youngest and not the
least distinguished member of a school of political
thinkers, of which M. ROVEK-COLLARD was the
founder and patriarch ; a school which for more
than half a century has never been without repre-
sentatives in France ; and which, having led the
intellectual opposition to the First Empire, con-
ti.mes its protest against the Second. One of
its leading characteristics has been the inti-
mate connexion which it has endeavoured
to establish between politics and morals. In
the person of its founder and original disciples,
the reaction from the doctrine of force to that of
right in government was combined with the revolt
from a sensational towards a spiritual philosophy,
and with the recognition of a moral and religious
purpose in history. In all these respects, as
in scholarship and ability, M. Pasvosv-Psaanoi.
is the wo-thy follower of Ronne-COLLARD,
GVIZOT, and REMVSAT. His pure and de-
licate moral sense detects latent vice even
in the severe ethics of Roman stoicism.
His criticism of the lathes of the Government
under which he lives, is at once merciless and
fearless. But, strange to say, the sternness with
which he rebukes ancient Rome and modern
France is exchanged for a mildness, which is
almost apologetic, when he speaks of England.
He accuses only that he may excuse, and finds in
the profligacy of our electoral system an illustra-
tion of the doctrine of MANDEVILLE that private
vices may be public benetita. Though the disclo-
sures which have recently been made with respect
to our electioneering practices painfully affect M.PRE-
VOEIT-PARADOL as a moralist, those practices are not
in his view politically no :loos. A candidate who has
secured his seat by the wholesale corruption of his
constituents is not necessarily, in the eyes of the
French purist, a bad member of Parliament. M.

Perivoorr-Partanor. contends that the composition
of the House of Commons is not seriously changed
for the worse by facts achasthose which have lately
become roiorions ; since the particular kind of
corruption practised in England is consistent with
the qualities most essential to a political assembly—
namely, independence and enlightenment. This is a
remarkable doctrine. Enlightened patriots, bent only
on promoting the well-being of the nation, would
scarcely begin their career by essaying to
corrupt it, in violation at once of the laws
of their country, and of the primary obliga-
tions of morals. The facts of the case are
as little in M. Peevoer-Perunor.'s favour as
intrinsic probability. The men who use the
instruments of election which he describes
enter the House of Commons chiefly for
personal objects. Mr. Lowe, an unimpeach-
able authority on matters of this kind, has
described them. They are " the representatives
"of great companies and great interests, and gen-
" tlemen wishing to get into society under the sti-
" multi, of their wives and daughters." Men whose
object in political life is to obtain a Government
contract, or a card of invitation from Lord
DERBY or Lord GRANVILLE, are not likely to be
models of independence. But assuming them to
be marvels of sturdy patriotism, what are we to say
to their enlightenment f If it were not that