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

LONDON, MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1853.

If the Government of our Anglo-Indian Em-
pire were in every other respect all that could be
desired, the vices incident to, and under the ex-
isting system inseparable from, the administration
of justice throughout the entire country would
render it essential to refuse a renewal of the
charter to the Company, at least until the local
tribunals had been completely remodelled. Unan-
swerable evidence has been adduced to show the
truly deplorable state of affairs in both the Civil
and Criminal Courts, arising from the gross
ignorance, inexperience, and general inefficiency
of the Judges. Lord CAMPBELL has spoken in
terms of strong but just indignation, in the House
of Lords, on the subject. Tho complaint has
been repeated by Lord MONTEAGLE and
other Peers, while the statements contained in
the Madras Petition, and in the able publication
by Mr. J. B. NonToN,* afford the most conclusive
testimony that these censures, so far from being
unmerited, have been by no means sufficiently
stringent. Nothing in this country, even before
the work of legal reformation had commenced,
and while the " Palace Court," and the different
" Courts of CONSCIENCE" (! ! 0 flourished, could
give any notion of the practical injustice perpe-
trated under the cloak of law, and that arising
not from the corruption, but the total incompe-
ten cey, of the Judges.
But how
Could it be otherwise ? How could
we hops for a due administration of justice, when
we consider the naturec of the system under which
not merely the Judges of the inferior tribunals,
but even of the appellatelB
and still are, appointed? jurisdictions, have been,
There is no Royal road
to judicial knowledge,
and even if there had been,
the greatest possible learning Would be compara-
tively useless, without practical
'xperien e
guide and assist the Judge
l conflicting
testimony, conflcting
c to
testiniony-, and arriving at Bound
conclusions
notwithstanding the positive asseverations of
interested or mendacious witnesses. any well-
qualified men could be obtained to discharge
these
important duties with ability, fidelity, and
zeal,
for less remuneration than that given to persons
profoundly ignorant of the law, and having ne
experience whatever, save as Assistant-Collec-
tors—by no means an eligible school—until, to
their own astonishment, and the disgust of the
unfortunate natives who reside within their juris-
diction, they are pitchforked on to the Judicial
Bench, without possessing a single qualification
for the office. This gross abuse, this flagrant
grievance, is connived at and sanctioned, in order
that there may be no diminution in the value of
the patronage of the Honourable Board of
Directors—that each lad at Hayley-bury may
be certain of attaining the Judicial Bench
in due course, his qualifications for the situa-
tion being a matter of the most profound in-
difference t) all parties who disregard the positive
injury, the serious dam. a,-;e to millions and tens of
millions of our fellow-subjects,
newly-elected Director in order that a
may reward the zeal of

* " Atluiiuistratiun of Justice in Southern India."
By John Bruce Norton, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

t 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 ; but
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 could
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 " WHITmoREs 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 law;
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 up
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 House of Com-
mons," and the Liberal Members of the Govern-
ment, 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 Cominittee 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 lie 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-
sult will be that the original and apparently ac-
cidentalL false step in the case of Blackburn, will
' e made the means of burking all that might be
elicited by
the faithfulness hitherto of the election
comraittees.
'This would be most unfortunate
both for the
reputation of the House, and in re-
spect of losing 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
writs is trivial, com-
paredprecedent for suspending
appearing before the
after havino-
nation
corruption,waistltiamtlpieeredrasngweirthuf
themselves done so much to bring it to light.t'
Very small
is the danger of any
suspending writs for
elections. Such majorities as could be thus ob-
tainedwell known not to be available
majorities.. by
seeking narrow
Administration could now
are now
majorities, and no
long survive resorting to such a manc.euvre.
We apprehend that the country
generally will read

with disappointment of the issue of writs to Bridg-
north and Blackburn. Party-spirit in each borough
will perhaps be satisfied with unseating a Member,
but the country generally looked on with a very
different concern to that. It hoped that the ut-
most possible instruction would be gained from
each case of proved corruption. We, therefore,
respectfully call upon the House to adopt Sir
JAMES GRAHAM'S suggestion, and to grant in
every case of proved bribery a Select Committee to
investigate its extent. As to dealing alike by all,
there is no more necessity for doing that than for
letting off all the guilty in a mutiny because some
are pardoned, or for not arresting the remainder
of a gang of thieves because some few have by
oversight escaped. The House cannot do more
wisely than to show by its future course that they
were surprised into the indulgence granted to
Bridgnorth and Blackburn.