The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-28 00:00:00

ablate was the main evil; but by the double quick time
—the prestissimo method of this new Bill, the voters
will, we fear, in many cases lose their franchise. It
is a very tantalising sort of liberality which gives men
an elective franchise as a great boon, for the sake of
which they are to forgive every folly in other matters
which the donors may fall into, and then to set such
restrictions upon the mode of exercising that franchise
as will in numerous cases render it unavail'ole. We
are really at a loss to discern the mot,'.ve of limiting the
polling at contested elections; for even the most popu-
lous counties, to nine lthurs, as well as to discoN.:,r the
practical reasoninfr 'by •
which the framers of the mea-
injsure satisfie,d tl7,ernselves that they were not doing an
ustice,
at the. Buppose a general election to take place
sr time the last did—to wit, in the last days
of. 1-Peeember and the earliest in January ; let a storm
of -blinding sleet be added to the other little accesso-
ries of a polling day at such a season_a season when
day] jg lit begins at half-past eight, and ends at half-
past three ; arid then let it be considered how the
polling of the electors of a county is to be managed
between eight in the morning and five in the afternoon.
Two hours of this time, the worthy electors, how-
ever clear-sighted unran political matters, must exer-
cise their elective f:tan. chise in the dark ; at all events,
they will not have the light of day to help them, and
unless polling booths be more comfortably arranged
than we ha-ie generally seen them, it will be no easy
matter to have the aid of candles in them, while a
December or January blast is howling through them.
flSome persons, exceedingly wise in their own conceits,
ay, shrug their shoulders at such objections as
trfling." They may be so to very profound philo-
sophers, who know no more of the practical working
of an election than the sage who analyses nitrate of
• potash knows of the sovereign virtues of saltpetre in
curing beef ; but we are very certain that, upon such
matters, the election of the Representatives of the
people of England. in the House of Commons must
depend. Supose the clerks in a polling booth to
work from its opening to its close, without a moment's '
cessation to eat, drink, or blow their fingers, could
they do more than poll a man per minute ? We sup-
Pose not. Now, this Bill allows, at the very utmost,
640 minutes for each polling
there booth to be open. Either
have must be more polling booths than hitherto there
been, or some of the voters must be turned away.
PFive hundred and forty votes per booth wont do in the
oPulous counties. And this, be it remembered, is
tile outside number, without any allowance for acci-
iientS—for he
and strugglings of rival voters
in front of the booths, and for " lack o' the sun," half
an hour in the morning, and an hour and a half in the
evening,
We very seriously submit that this is rather
sharp practice. It is particularly so for the aged, or the
sick, am/Infirm voters, who generally wait until the
rusn and hurry of the polling are over. If they do this
their
under the new system (and they must do so, or risk
lives), they will find that when the hurry is over,
the election is oVer, and that they cannot vote at all.
We are glad to see that one Member of the House of
I.tanwns) and, to the shame of the Liberals be it said,
'ory)•did bear in mind the necessity that the people
should bee
allowed votes a fair opportunity of recording their
Bides, and moved that, under certain conditions, a can-
be Might call upon the Sheriff to erect a polling
otd for every 450 voters in each district. This was
licit oPposed, but reserved for insertion in a future stage
sharp
look-out for this "future stage," and see that hi
clause makes its appearance upon it. Such a provi-
s
sion may increase the expense, but that we consider of
small importance compared with the benefit to be de-
rived from it—namely, that of affording a reasonable
time for electors to tender their votes. Nine hours,
with the abatement of ordinary interruptions, and two
hours of darkness in the winter months, are certainly
not more than enough for the polling of 450 votes in
feach booth. The Bill contains some new regulations
:°r changine.b the places of polling in counties upon the
presentation of Justices of the Peace, or the High
Sheriff; sanctioned by the King in Council. These
are regulations which might be abused, and such
changes, ~.._
"ee t upon very solid grounds of particular
expediency, are to be deprecated. But in these days,
when ever
fit t y reader of a penny magazine thinks himself
? re-arrano.,
against the world, it is in vain to contend
the too6-ready adoption of a principle of change.
.........Afor .
ntng Herald.
The A •
,
mendments of the Lords to the Prisoners'
derCounselt. Bill were last night brought under the consi-
a 'on of the
House of Commons. The whole dis-
,ussion hinged on the question whether or not the ac-
jd §.hould be allowed the last word. In contending
4o • the right of the prisoner's Counsel to be heard in
I.ePIY to the speech of the prosecutor's, after the closing
?therof evidence, Mr. Ewart took occasion to expose an-
of.the perfidies which mark the political career of
t."ord Lyndhurst. It appears that this Lord—noble
by al lep,al fiction—when Attorney
-General, opposed a
ll' Purposing to give the aid of Counsel to prisoners,
rior, the ground that it gave two speeches to the prose-
ng Counsel—as the present Bill does—and de-
carred the,
prisoner of a reply ; and yet the same dis-
n'guished -Judge now lends his sanction to an amend-
objee,nt, rescinding the very clause intended to secure the
ct for which he then professed to feel so much
theolicitude.. It would be supererogatory to dwell on
exposure of this tergiversation ; in regard to any
"e else, -such dereliction from principle might
a.ifford grounds of the gravest accusation ; but Lord
with"-"Yodhurst has this advantage, that in being covered
zniorminor
Such a number of political delinquencies his
number
escape notice in the enormity of
o e,raore. serious charges whiCh may be brought
fga'n him. The motive by which the Lords pro-
ess..,
) 'R to be actuated in depriving prisoners of the
.4t,
f word was, that it would be more in their
favour to leave them to the commiseration of a Jury,
'4ll grant them the right of putting, through their
Counsel, the most favourable construction on their 1
This, at first siht, to some may appear a very 1
1-!matle motive ; but "when devils will the blackest
4
c.rnxlll/e
put on, they do at first suggest with heavenly
h ,' ,
s as the Lords do here. The duty of the Jury
Lnelrl_,i not to dispense pity, but justice. The object of
Constitution is not to screen the guilty nor to
inculpate the innocent, but to investigate impartially
thet truth. 'And though humanity prompts the giving
t2''st° the accused the benefit of a doubt where doubt
ts• yet the ends of legislation would be as much
meferAted"by leaving the prisoner to the commiseration
Q.l the Jury, instead of to the fullest and most favour-
exposition of his case, as to expose him to "Lynch
'haw," and the dictates of vindictive passion, without
.rjr?ging him to trial at all. It is surprising how men
branch
in the Legislature—even in that most absurd
ranch of it, the Lords—could betray such an utter
Ignorance of jurisprudence as to defend the amend-
we on such a monstrous pretext as that on which
thee have been commenting. Why should not
vil Counsel for the prisoner have the same pri-
in ege as the Counsel for the prosecution—to com-
mlent ma the facts and draw his inferences ? Why
should one
party be allowed the advantage of two
e_ecthes, and the other of only one ? If Counsel be
teh.:essary at all, party an equal
why not give each
'theor if not, and perhaps it would be in general
dispense best means of accomplishing the ends of justice,
decide with speeches on either side, and let the jury
(~ on
?the
vonsel Thi
evidence uninfluenced by the appeals of
ceytable s would, perhaps, not be altogether ac-
hut,t° long-robed and long-winded gentlemen ;
ctduntloubtedly, truth would be far more easily ell-
bia,,,e f.retio unvarnished evidence, than from the ver-
ge Which the advocate on either part must of
Y endeavour to obscure it. In fact, we are
strono.l . .
lowed b y of opinion, that if prisoners' Counsel were al-
to
to reply,
sedr).,_ . the counsel for the prosecution would
01,. ti_Lue avail himself of the permission of commenting
i,.._", iFvidence for the defence, and thus would save
' 'i c
e. 7
Wane, without militating against the ends of jus-
desire tWe always suspect those of sinister motives who
tive. O leave to casual discretion what may be posi-
wol. provided for, and such is the object of those who
et:11%11:11ve the prisoner to the commiseration or non-
of ration of the jury, instead of the merits or de-
it„__e...ol
then cause.
On the motion of Lord John
,4,_"81.11_ consideration of the Lords' amendment
Akt? referred to a Select Cominittee.—Morning
41,eturtzser.
We agon_
~,,have seldom had the pain to witness such an
list ;)I(.°' aPprehension as the O'Connellite IVlinisteria-
"'splay regarding the Irish Tithe Bill. Their

I

terror lest this question should be settled is as strange
as it is painful. Why should they doubt that the in.•
fluence and the industry which have hitherto been so
successful in preventing the ntt.jn`stnieWt of tithe iu
Ireland) and rejecting the substitute
should be so still re Why should they tremble for the
=tinned reign of folly and factious feelina
House of Commons ? the
do
profess to be in the
secrets of those nun
wnom the enemies of our Pro-
test
' ant Mr2;;Jarchy‘have hitherto relied; but if we-may
.;:itigre from the piteous shrieks of distress with which
they are summoned to the rescue next Monday evening
in the House of Commons, there is strong reason to
suspect somewhere that sense, moderation, and jus-
tice, are likely to be more powerfully supported,
than for some time they have been in that House.
Lord Melbourne—with that sort of sense and mag-
nanimity, which 8o much distinguish him—has
given up the charge of the Irish Tithe Bill, because
the Lords have expunged from it a clause which has no
manner of onnection with its professed object, except
as a sort of hostile flag to denote that the Bill was
framed in no spirit of good-will to the Church. This
high and mighty conduct of his Lordship has no pa-
rallel in grave political history, and we are forced into
the realm of fiction to find something with' 'Which to
compare it. Sterne's Mrs. Jenny, who, taking offence
at a hint that " a lutestring at a guinea a yard, which
she was cheapening," was too much for her, turned
round and ordered " a stuff at tenpence," is the fittest
prototype for the Prime Minister's proud proceeding.
It is true that the Lords concur with him in the
principle of the commutation of tithes for a rent
charge--that, with one or two not very important '
changes, they adopt the details of the Ministerial
measure ; but because the hostile principle—the
O'Connell shibboleth, which had no more business
where it was than a Romish scapulary upon the
shoulders of a Protestant Clergyman—because that
needless offence has been eradicated from the Bill,
he gives it tip. But he has done more than this.
In a moment of singular forgetfulness of self, and not
of himself alone, but of his unhappy colleagues, he
gave a rash pledge, that were a majority of the House
of Commons to approve of what the Lords have done
in this matter, he would resign. Before the vote was
taken in their Lordships' House upon the question he
made the dread announcement that if it were carried
and approved by a majority of the Commons the
awful event which, with a screwing of our courage to
the sticking place, we have prevailed upon ourselves to
write down, would take place. The House shook at
the hypothetical suggestion, but whether with incre-
dulous laughter, or deep-felt fear, it boots not now to
tell. But the Members of that House are of stony
hearts and iron nerves ; and, in spite of the alternative
held out to them, they did vote the O'Connell clause
out of the Bill, by a majority of three to one. One
part of Lord Melbourne's condition is fulfilled ; the
other, which, with, such peculiar propriety in a Mem-
ber of the House of Lords, he had stated—namely, a
majority of the House of Commons also against
him—may be fulfilled when the Bill goes back to that
House. This is the point upon which the dreadfully-
straining eyeballs of the O'Connellite Ministerialists
are at present fixed. It is in vain now to lament the
indiscretion of Lord Melbourne in pledging himself
that if a majority of both Houses were against him he
would resign. It is, indeed, very surprising and un-
fortunate that a Minister who is quite accustomed to
find the numbers always three or four to one against
him in the House of Parliament to which he belongs
should, in a moment of excitement such as loses sight
of all reality and probability, have talked of resigning
if there were ever so small a majority against him in
the House to which he does not belong. This was a
stretch of devotion to his country and his cause which
prudence should have forbidden ; but what is said,
is said, and there is no help for it. The thing
is now to make a majority in the House of Com-
mons ; for if it be not made—horrescimus 7Tfe-
rentes—the Melbourne Administration is pledged
to dissolution. " The vote will be taken on Mon-
day night," says the O'Connellite print ; " recollect,
it is a struggle in which life or death is concerned.
Come, then, to the rescue—come one, come all—they
are traitors who stay away." It is not thought ne-
cessary by the disinterested journal in question to prove
that the settlement of the Irish tithe question ought
to be forfeited, rather than have that legislative settle-
ment divorced from Mr. O'Connell's appropriation
clause, with which it has no just or reasonable con-
nection. It knows better with whom it has to deal.
It judges with a nicer sympathy of the kind of spur
which will most successfully drive in the Whig-Radical
stragglers. It• announces in horrid and appalling ca-
pitals the dread alternative—the resignation of the Mel-
bourne Ministry. It well knows that
" Nothing could it to damnation add greater than that."
Nothing could it urge so likely to prove effective with
those who are most obstreperously vehement in the advo-
cacy of revolutionary patriotism. But the inquiry yet
remains, why is there such fear ? Why such urgency of
entreaty and abuse on this occasion, when hitherto a ma-
jority for Ministers, although diminishing, has still been
obtained? In the first place, there may be good reason
to believe that, though the powerful and most persua-
sive speech of Lord Lyndhurst on Monday night was
not sufficient to induce Lord Melbourne to throw off
the O'Connell chain wherewith he is bound, and to
yield to the demonstration of reasoning and the plead-
ings of eloquence, it has succeeded with Members of
House of Conimons who can afford to be independent.
Large as may be the phalanx of those who hold, and
who expect to hold, place under the present Adminis-
tration—heavy as the crop of Commissionerships is
likely to be from the diligent cultivation of that de-
sirable commodity by the present Government—and
eager as the band of youthful and middle-aged patriots
may be to assist in the gathering-in of the same, it
would be unjust to the whole mass of Ministerial
supporters not to suppose that a good many of
them are accessible to reason, and honest enough
to act upon its dictates. It would be equally
unjust to the understanding of that portion to
suppose that, having read the speech of Lord
Lyndhurst, apart from those incitements of party
which prevent speeches in the House of Commons
from receiving a calm, impartial hearing, they have not
been convinced by it, and satisfied that a difference of
opinion between- the two Houses upon the " appro-
priation clause" is no reason why Irish tithes should
not be commuted for rent charge--a proposition upon
which there is no difference of opinion between the
two Houses. It may, therefore, not unreasonably be
calculated that some of those who sent up the clause
to the House of Lords will not vote against the
amendment which has expunged it. It is to be borne
in mind that as the next division on this clause is one
upon which hangs the existence of the Administration
a bare majority will not suffice. A majority in such a
case, composed only of Ministers and their subordi-
nates in office, is a defeat. It would certainly be so
held by any set of Ministers who were men of spirit
and honour. A Ministry beaten by three to one in
the House of Lords, and supported by a majority
composed solely of their own votes in the House
of Commons, would indeed stand in a very despi-
cable position before the country. No one can
doubt that Ministers will vote for themselves, but
many will doubt that such a majority as that is
decently sufficient, after a pompous declaration that, if
not supported by a majority of the House of Commons,
Ministers would resign. A majority of 26 will not do.
There are more than 26 in the House of Commons
whose salaries depend upon the existence of the Ad-
ministration. We look
with great interest to this di-
vision. We shall not imitate the example of those we
despise, by calling such of our party as may absent
themselves " traitors ;"
out we venture to express our
trust that no gentleman of the Conservative body in
the House of Commons who has a due regard for his
principles as a Protestant and his honour as a public
man will fail to make his vote effective upon this great
occasion. To turn out the Ministers is not the object.
We dare say they might he prevailed upon to stay, and
we do not care though they continue to have the
salaries—(seeing how necessary they are to their hap-
piness)—provided they be hindered from the grovel-
ling baseness to which their connection with O'Con-
nell has pledged them. We call upon the Conservative
Members to attend, for the purpose of stopping by one
decisive vote that tendency towards a coarse, corrupt,
Popish ascendancy, which is the curse of the public
affairs of Great Britain at this day.—morning Post.