The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-24 00:00:00

LONDON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1853.

We do not rejoice in iniquity, but when the
iniquity, though difficult of detection, yet un-
doubtedly exists, we and all men rejoice in its
exposure. We confess, therefore, that we peruse
the proceedings before election committees with
no-small degree of zest. The existence of abun-
dant bribery no one doubts ; the villany of the
thing no one denies ; yet when it is the interest of
both the parties implicated to conceal the fact, it
must generally be very difficult to establish it.
It is, therefore, a real pleasure when reasonable
evidence, as at Lancaster and Canterbury, can be
obtained of what was perfectly certain without
the evidence. Of course, every instance of bribery
proved is but a sample of hundreds or thousands,
which nothing but a St. Alban's Commission can
bring to light ; and sincerely do we hope that the
Rouses of Parliament will readily grant the com-
missions. It was a most mischievous cone-A.sion
to require the co-operation of the House of Lords
inorder to get one.
,What have the Lords to do
with the election of Commoners ?—what, in theory
and equity, we mean, for DOD informs us of the
extent of their " influence." Even the Lords,
however, cannot refuse the inquiry demanded by
the two cases already decided. " The pawnbroker"
at Lancaster) and the "colour-men" of Canterbury
already bid fair to become additions to " W. 8.,"
cc Fro," " Safe Man," and the rest of the elec-
tioneering classic vocabulary. Only think, in
this land of liberty—in this land where Cabinet
Ministers reproach the electors of France with
lying proStrate at the feet' of a single man—only
think of our electors at the mqey of a pawn-
broker's ticket !-- of " colour-men”
finding
sovereigns in bed-coverlids ! and of " colour-
tickets," payable the day after the poll, being
purchaseable in the market at 20 per cent. di,
count, in any number ; " you might buy them
like sprats !" Sir FRANCIS BURDETT was held
guilty of a heinous libel on the House, in 1810,
for describing it as " a part of our fellow-subjects
collected together by means which it is not necessary
to describe." Unless elections were much more
pure under the old system, the libel must have
been grounded on the motto, " the greater the
truth the greater the libel." Norwich, we see,
has escaped for the present. Yet a corrupter
constituency, either municipally or electorally,
does not exist in ;the kingdom. And though
there was no direct bribery, we believe, in the
interest of the sitting members at the late elec-
tion, yet means were adopted by which large
numbers of non-electors, and electors, too, were
the ITtter, Pecuniarily, for " a contest." Espe-
cially a vast " Watch Committee" was organised,
whose business was to see to .every suspicious
voter, and to " watch" the movements of every

TH

Tory agent. Of course a committee of poor
voters and non-electors did not act the political
" CHARLIE " for nothing.

One Liberal member has been unseated for
want of a proper qualification. Every reasonable
man must regret this. Mr. CARTER was one of
the outspoken ones, of whom a few are indispen-
sable to the House ; and there is something shabby
in a man's being ousted for want of an antiquated
feudal qualification—a qualification scouted in
Scotland, and which even Lord. JOHN RUSSELL
himself has proposed to abolish. Mr. CARTER,
too, had a majority of 65, in a constituency of
349, over Mr. PBILLIMORE, who, the committee
declares, ought to have been elected. It would
certainly seem but reasonable, bard as the case is
upon Mr. CARTER, that there should have been
another election. It is not impossible that Mr.
CARTER might in a few days have acquired the
requisite feudal qualification--a requisite destined,
however, to speedy abolition.
It is to be borne in mind, that, difficult as it is
to brilig home bribery to the parties, it is still
more ap to convict of intimidation. Not only
can this most cruel mode of bribery be practised
by modes the least tangible of any, but to force
the victim to betray his oppressor even upon oath,
might be the ruin of the poor man and his family.
The hint may have been so given that it has all
the force of a threat without the form of it, and
the victim would be strongly tempted to real per-
jury, excusing himself on a matter of form. We
lay it down for certain, that intimidation—i. e.,
voting under the fear of displeasing some one—is
far more general than gross bribery. Whatever
case for the Ballot is made out, therefore, by the
revelations of bribery, must be considered as
ba*ed by a much stronger but unproveable case
of intimidation. It is very instructive to the op-
ponents of the Ballot, if they are disposed to
learn from facts, how, even in the few instances
which could be come at, the bribers were deter-
mined to get the vote before they paid the money;
in one instance, indeed, losing a vote in conse-
quence. EDWARDS and the " Safe Man " ma-
naged better. Nothing we regard as more certain
than that bribers never could trust bribe-takers
without the receipt which the poll-book fur-
nishes.

Mr. BER' KELEY will certainly have a splendidly
infamous addition to his stock of arguments for
his all-important motion, but we would venture to
offer him a suggestion. Should Parliament "in
its wisdom" refuse to adopt his proposal, may it
not be worth his while to bring it forward again
thii session in connexion with Lancaster, Canter-
bury, and all such boroughs as can be laid hold
of ? There will be a reluctance to disfranchise in
one case 1,400, in the other 1,900 electors, if
electors they ought to be called. Might it not be
proposed to unite with these towns some one or
more constituencies—we should prefer borough
unions thatmake up 5,000 electors at least—and
require them all to vote by ballot. It would be a
trial where even opponents would own that the
ballot could not make things worse. We do not
mean for a moment to concede that the Ballot would
not be an advantage everywhere. We believe
that even where there may be little either of
bribery or of intimidation, the Ballot would be
productive of a degree of order and quiet unknown
before. Indeed, we have little doubt that were
it granted but to a few places, its results would
be' such as to lead all upright and peace-loving
people to demand its universal adoption.

A more important question of Constitutional
Law has seldom if ever been brought under the
consideration of a legal tribunal than that which,

peithaps., at this moment is under discussion be-
fore the going Judges of Assize for the Munster
04-cult, and. a Jury of the County of Clare.
Whether the military are justified to any and
what extent in repelling the insults and outrages
to which they may be exposed in the discharge
of their duty, and under what circumstances they
may be warranted in resorting to the deadly
weapons with which they are entrusted, will be
fully and ably debated. It may appear that the
soldier is placed in a position of extraordinary diffi-
culty—that there may be a conflict between the civil
and military codes, so that he may be subjected to
punishment whatever may be his conduct—that
in sone case he may be convicted before a Court-

martial for disobedience of orders—while, in the
other) his obedience to these very orders may ex-
poe him to an indictment for murder. Some
Jurists assert that obedience is the primary and
indispensable duty of a soldier—that his civil is
altogether merged in his military character, and
that, if he were for a moment permitted even
to hesitate about obeying the .orders delivered by
competent authority, there would be an end to
all subordination, and that the service could no
longer maintain the efficiency for which it has
been so honourably distinguished during succes-
sive ages. Acta non. verbs should be his guiding
principle—he is "to act not to reason." It
would be impossible to calculate the amount of
mischief that might arise if soldiers were to can-
vass the propriety of orders delivered during an
emergency before they obeyed them.
On the other hand, we are told, and the charge
of Mr. 'Justice PERRTN, an experienced judge of
profound knowledge and extensive research, ap-
pears to corroborate the view—that soldiers have
no privileges beyond civilians, and that the com-
mands of their superior officers afford no justifi-
cation for any illegal proceeding on their part.
They cannot clear a way for themselves through an
opposing crowd ; and, unless their lives be
actually endangered, are not warranted in using
the weapons placed in their hands by the
authority of Parliament. If this view be correct,
the situation of a private soldier is by no means
an enviable one. Ho is tossed on the horns of
a very unpleasant dilemma—the only alternative
being corporal punishment, with, perhaps, im-

pris;nment and hard labour ; or possibly trans-
portation as a felon, for disobedience of or-
ders on the one hand, and a painful and igno-
minious death upon the scaffold, as a murderer,
for too fatal an obedience, on the other.
Need the Peace Society adduce a more powerful
argument to dissuade young men from enlisting
than a simple statement of the law relating to
collisions between the military and the people.
We are not prepared at this moment to dispute

the law laid down by Mr. Justice PERRIN, and
certainly any opinion deliberately put forward by
that eminent and learned Judge is entitled to re-
spectful and attentive consideration. Nor is it
necessary to allude to the circumstances of the
melancholy transaction. They are but too well
known to our readers, and we have already, on seve-
ral occasions, expressed our opinions in reference
thereto. The broad question of law is that to
which we must now exclusively direct our atten-
tion ; and in commenting thereon we are mate-
rially assisted by the elaborate charge of Judge
PERRIN, the substance whereof will be found in
another part of this day's impression.
The first point laid down by the learned Judge
is, that the defendants were present with arms in
their hands, in obedience to their orders ; but
that " such, orders would not justify any unlawful
conduct or violence on their part." Now, this
places the issue on the broadest foundation. Con-
flicting laws are at all times impolitic and inexpe-
dient, and if a soldier is bound to obedience by
one code which has received the Legislative
sanction, it appears strange, indeed, if he
should under another law, emanating from
the same source, be punishable for that
which is enjoined by another and equally valid
enactment. It seems but reasonable, that a per-
son armed with authority to issue such commands
should be himself responsible for their execution,
and that the instruments of his will should be ex-
empted from any liability for acting in accordance
therewith. The responsibility should be placed
on the right shoulders, and the anomaly got rid
of as speedilyaspEpßuz b
ositsible.e
ciofrrteheet, laawle,gaisslatlaivide
down by Judge
remedy for the evil will be indispensable.
The next point laid down by the learned Judge
may be regarded as part and parcel of the former,
a corollary from the proposition there put forward.
lie says, that "soldiers have no right to force their
way_ through a crowd by violence, or by arms, and
still less by the discharge of deadly weapons. They
have no right to repel an assault or trespass on