The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-09 00:00:00

overstepped, whether or no it is expedient at this
juncture to say so, and in what way a warning may
be given to Russia without irritating the pride '
of a northern despot, and plunging the Conti-
nent into the horrors of a bloody European war.
SATURDAY REVIEW.—A bribery debate does not
add to the credit of the House of Commons. No-
body believes the house to be in earnest, and long
experience has fully satisfied the public that nothing
will result from its sharp war of words and close
divisions but a string of inoperative clauses. The
truth is, that in such discussions the house feels it-
) self in an embarrassing position. The elections of
many who sit there are not reputed to have been
quite pure from the offence; and many more have
been at one time or another charged with it. To

call upon them to affix new and' more stringent

penalties to it is something more than asking them
to kiss the rod. It is asking them to select the
twigs that are to compose it, taking care that there
shall be plenty of buds upon the ends of them. The
result is much what might be expected if a similar
commission were entrusted to a party of Eton boys.
The members made a great parade of their anxiety
in general to find the most elastic switches, and the
most abundant crop of buds; but whe❑ any parti-
cular twig of a formidable appearance is offered for
their acceptance, they always detect some fatal
weakness or undue stiffness in some part of it,
which absolutely precludes them, as a matter of
conscience, from tying up so worthless a bit of wood
into the rod. It is no matter for surprise, therefore,
that bribery debates should resound with profes-
sions of rarity sublime enough to bring down an
admiring and awe-struck nation upon its knees,
but that the bribery acts which are the result of
them should present a very attenuated and impal-
pable structure to the eye. There is another and a
better reason why the House of Commons should
wince visibly at the proposal to pass more rigorous
enactments against bribery. They arenot only a ter-
ror to evil doers, but a fearful engine of oppression
against unlucky partisans. A man's election may
have been as pure as driven snow, but if an unscru-
pulous Parliamentary agent thinks fit to inflict on
him the expense of a few hundred pounds he can do
so by the simple process of presenting a sham peti
tion against his election. As soon as the unlucky
member has engaged his lawyers and marshalled
his witnesses in his defence, the petition can be
quietly withdrawn. The fate of those whose cases
go on to trial is still less enviable. They are tried
before a committee of five—composed of men every
one of whom, if it were a criminal case, and they
were jurymen, would be challenged as a hostile par-
tisan by one side or the other. This committee, so
constituted, does not bind itself either in its inquiry
or its judgment, by the rules of English law. It is
fettered by no laws of evidence except such as the
chairman pleases to enforce ; and in deciding upon
the guilt of those whom it condemns it does not pro-
fess to require legal proof. Evidence of agency to
which no court of law would listen—i. e., evidence
that the candidate was cognisant of the bribes which
his over zealous partisans had offered—is frequently
accepted by committees. They merely require to
be morally convinced of the fact. It is surprising
how rapidly moral conviction can be accomplished
when the majority of the committee differ in
politics from the member who is being tried.
It is an ideal representative Government where all
interests are allowed to battle freely with each
other, and their respective claims are ultimately
adjusted according to the intrinsic importance of
each. But it is idle to expect the elector in a small
town to believe that his vote is a sacred trust, when
this race of enlightened selfishness is being run be-
fore his eyes. A philosopher may draw a distinc-
tion between the pecuniary benefits which will re-
sult to you, as one of a class, from the adoption of a
political measure, and the coarser form of pecuniary
benefit. which results from the insertion of a fite-
pound note into your pocket. But the electors'oan-
not be expected to exercise so subtle a discrimina-
tion. He sees that others get a money value for
their vote, and he asks why he should not do the
same. He may possibly belong to a constituency
too small to have any local interests to serve
He can only make his vote pay by directly taking
money for it. Small constituencies are generally more
tainted with this practice than large on. s ; and
art of the reason may be that they cannot be bribed
in any other way. But the elector of Huddersfielo
wil' never be induced to see anything disgraceful
in accepting £5O a piece for his pigs. so long as be
gees that the elector of Liverpool or Hull is allowed
without rt-proach to use his political influence for
the purpose of perpetuating 'he local dues on ship-
ping, and so lessening the borough rate he has to
pay. If bribery is ineradicable, it is a consolation
to reflect that the consequent loss to the constitu
tion is not very great. it is a curious but not un-
common fallacy to suppose that an elector, when he
has been prevented from taking a bribe, is straight
way invested with the virtues of a patriotic politi-
cian. A Gloucester elector who is cut off from his
customary gratification by a stringent bribery act
no more becomes a patriot than a cat ceases to be
carnivorous because the larder is locked up. It is
quite certain that a man who would take payment
,or his vote if he could get it, can have, in default
of it, no worthier motive to fall back upon. Our
constituencies are disfigured by a certain number of
persons who have no political opinions to out weigh
the natural desire of gain. If by any Parliamen
tary clairvoyance it were possible to discover these
bacitsliding patriots their removal from the register
would be a salutary reform. But so long as they
remain there it is a matter of no vital moment to
the working of the constitution whether they vote
under the influence of bribes or not. It may be de
sirable, in the interests of public decorum, that the
scandal of their proceedings should if possible be
abated ; but when that has been effected their votes
will operate on the selection of candidates neither
more nor less mischiev(,usly than they do now.