The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, -JUNE U., 1363.

drawal. At present great facilities are offered to
unscrupulous parties who do not hesitate to avail
themselves of them, and many abuses result. There
are two special evils which this bill is designed to
prevent—first, the presentation of sham petitions
got up for the purpose of inflicting annoyance, or
of extorting money ; and, secondly, what Mr.
HUNT called corrupt bargains, that is the system of
withdrawing a well-grounded petition on coming
to an agreement with the accused party. A mem-
ber, or his agents who had bribed his way into Par-
liament, would certainly not hesitate to smooth
away the difficulties of an adverse petition by
the same easy means. Sir F. SLADE,
a gentleman of great experience in elec-

tion matters, stated before the select committee
appointed to inquire into the Corrupt Practices Act
1854, that ho had often known sham petitions got
up against members for the purpose of extorting
from them £l,OOO. Mr. Cox, the member for Fins-
bury, confirmed this statement by a passage from
his own experience. He said that a petition was
presented against him in the year 1857, which
charged him and his agents with every crime which
could invalidate an election. But within 24 hours of
striking that petition, a man of respectable position
had called upon him, and told him that if he would
pay him £5OO the petition should be withdrawn.
The effecting of compromises in the case of well-
founded petitions, is also a disgraceful system, and,
as Mr. HIINT truly observed, such petitions de-
serve no mercy. In many cases there is no doubt
that, as Mr. PHINN said before the Committee,
agents present petitions as pecple deal cards—as
fast as one side brought forward a petition the
other brought one to match it, quite regardless of

the real merits of the case. Mr. Cox divided the
election petitions into three classes, bona fide
petitions, frivolous and vexatious petitions, and
extortionate petitions. Mr. HUNT'S measure pro-
poses to deal with these several cases. He sug-
gests that at the beginning of each session a
small standing committee shall be appointed
by the general committee of elections, and that
when any person wishes to withdraw
a petition that standing committee should inquire

into the circumstances and make a report to the
House. if the committee report that the petition
is vexatious, the petitioner is to be liable to pay the
costs incurred by the sitting member and other
costs in addition, at the discretion of the committee•

If the petition is discovered to be withdrawn in
consequence of a corrupt compromise, the petitioner
shall forfeit his recognisances of £l,OOO which he
has necessarily previously entered into. the
general tone of the House was decided in favour of
the Bill, although exception was naturally taken to

some points of it. It was read a second time, and
was admitted on all sides to be " a step in the right
direction," although, as the Solicitor-General ob-
served, it will be necessary to guard carefully
against any undue interference with the right of
petitioning. Still, in case of withdrawal, the peti-
tioners refuse to exercise that right, and it is cer-
tainly most unfair that a member should be pat to
expense and annoyance merely to gratify a vexations
spirit. The evils attending compromise and extor-
tion are of a worse degree, and the dignity of the
Legislature can hardly submit to be so trifled with.
With all this professed eagerness for purity of

election and an immaculate Parliament. it is strange
how members still manifest the same extraordi-
nary reluctance to try the radical cure for all these
discrepancies in our representative system, which
is to be found in the Ballot.