The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-21 00:00:00

± Petition of the Madras Native Association, section
68, p. 25.

Of the boroughs which have been tried and
convicted, three have been called up for judgment
before the House of Commons. The sentence of
two is, that they are to be restored forthwith to
their representative privileges, while a third is to
be visited with a committee of investigation.
Blackburn and Bridgnorth the House of Commons
restores to their former position. Canterbury is
doomed to a visit from Mr. SLADE, so successful
at St. Alban's, and a brother commissioner or two.
There doubtless were reasons why PHARAOH
hanged the baker, while he restored the butler to
his office ; and there may be unrecorded reasons
why the House saves Bridgnorth and Blackburn,
and punishes Canterbury. The public, however,
is very much puzzled to find them. Canterbury,
indeed, like Cambridge, Hull, and Norwich, is
a very old offender, and the colourmen gave more
than a colourable reason for a commission ; bui,
at Blackburn, where 2,5001., at least, were
expended on 580 voters (for that was the number
who voted for Mr. ECCLES), there must surely be
something worthy of thorough investigation. It
should be well searched out how these vast sums,
of the application of which sitting and unseated
members can give no account, were actually ex-
pended. A Commission would be of great value,
if employed, not merely to disfranchise a borough,
but to inform us, on authority which covid
not be questioned, respecting all corrupt prac-
tices at elections ; and as we are on the eve
of a new Reform Bill, the House of Com-
mons should be much more ready to grant
these searching investigations now, that we may
enter on the work next year with more
accurate knowledge and greater unanimity.
Bridgnorth again, is, perhaps, a favourable
specimen of a large class of boroughs which need
to be examined and cross-examined with the ut-
most acuteness and diligence. It is confessedly
an " influence " borough. Mr. HERBERT, indeed,
affirmed that the influence was a kind one. Mr.
DISRAELI gave reason to think that it was not
omnipotent. Be it so. Yet Mr. CADOGAN'S state-
ment, that the " WirrTmoßEs could return their
footman if they pleased," and Mr. COBDEN'S
letter, satisfactorily showed that even bribery
could be substantiated to a great extent. It is
true the letter, as Mr. COBDEN would not, unless
a Select Committee were appointed, divulge the
writer's name, was not evidence in a court of larA;
but Mr. COBDEN made the statement his own, and
the petition from the town, with Mr. CADOGAN
and Mr. COBDEN'S statements, were ample ground
for a Select Committee to make farther inquiries.
We regret the more that this case was given un
by the House, because " influence"—that is inti-
midation—is the most difficult thing to get petitions
against, and the most difficult to lay hold of. We
may not soon catch so nice a case again.
If it be true, as Mr. BROWN affirmed before the
Norwich Committee, that almost any Member
might be unseated under the late Bribery Act,
and that the wonder is when any petition fails,
we cannot be surprised at the leniency of the
House ; still, we rather incline to the view of
those who think that it was rather nonplussed,
than wilfully indulgent to the guilty on this occa-
sion. Even the "Leader of the Hour.,, of Com-
mons," and the Liberal Members of the Goverr-
meat, appear to have faltered, though there is no
reason to suspect Lord JOHN of any wish but to
prove his pet Bribery Act a decided cure for cor-
ruption. So far as can be gathered from the
debates, the Government does not appear to have
been averse to a Select Committee on Blackburn.
Yet Sir JOHN SHELLEY withdrew his amendment,
and allowed the writ to be issued without a divi-
sion, although Lord JOHN RUSSELL had intimated
that, if he pressed the amendment to a division, he
would vote with him. Then it was alleged by
Sir JAMES GRAHAM, that the mercy shown to
Blackburn must be extended to Bridgnorth also,
although he personally wished that, in every case
of a member unseated for bribery, a Select Com-
mittee should be appointed to make further inves-
tigation. If this course be persisted in, the re-
sultlie willebbye thet thath the original and apparently ac-
cidental false step in the case of Blackburn, will
be a
bcoomthmfiotr
rmeepeauntisastion faithfulnessb
of
theu rhkiitnhge hitherto thathmeilgehcttiobn
the
te This be
wouldbe
House, most unfortunate
and i
nre-
spect of losin€, a mass of valuable evidence in aid
of the new Reform Bill discussions. We would
earnestly press upon the Government and the
House to retrace their steps and to take a very
decided course. Any objection against creating a
precedent for suspending writs is trivial, coin-
pared with the danger of appearing before the
nation as tamperers with corruption, after having
themselves done so much to bring it to light.
Very small is the by suspending writs for
danger of any Goverment again
seeking narrow majorities
elections. Such majofnitoiesnasnocotultdo bebe tahvuaislaob-
tained are now well known
majorities, and no Administration could now
long survive resorting to such a manoeuvre.
We apprehend that the country generally will read