The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-28 00:00:00

et*litGealt3l# -c"'%ltt/b

LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 28, 1549.

The Bribery at Elections Bill was on Wednesday
considered in Committee, and the division which took
place on the Ist, and by far the most important
clause, may be regarded as conclusive on the fate of
the measure. The fearful extent to which bribery has
been carried at elections, the corruption and in-
trigues that are notoriously carried on, exhibit in the
clearest light how utterly inadequate the present
system is to meet the acknowledged evil. The law
is easily evaded, and we regret to say even wilful and
corrupt perjury is but too frequently resorted to. The
oaths to be taken by electors against bribery
have a most demoralising and injurious influence
throughout the entire country, more especially in
those small constituencies where a few hundred in-
habitants can return a representative to Parliament,
and where a few voters can turn the scale at any
contest. The sanctity of an oath is brought into
contempt and disrepute by the repeated and familiar
instances of its violation, and by the perfect impunity
with which it is effected. When we see persons who
are well known to have sworn to that which is "not
the truth" pursuing their daily avocations, and
mingling freely in society, the horror with which the
offence is regarded by degrees becomes mitigated,
and in time wears away. " Custom-house
oaths" were at one period spoken of as
matters of but little c msequence, which
might be taken freely without hesitation or
remorse; and too many, we regret to say, even at
the present day, look upon " election oaths" as of the
same character, which involve but little moral guilt
if improperly taken.
It is but justice to say that Sir JOHN PASINGTON
(the promoter of the present Bill) has exhibited an
honourable anxiety to wipe away this stain and re-
proach from the country, and that he has laboured
assiduously for the attainment of his object. While,
however, we bear our willing testimony to the purity
of his motives, we must acknowledge that he has
failed in producing a great and comprehensive mea.
sure, calculated to extirpate this crying abuse.
" Melius eat peters fontes, qusm sec!ari rink's."

In such cases the sources of the admitted evils should
be thoroughly investigated, and stringent remedies,
striking at their very root, adopted. Sir. J.
PAKtroatosi merely desires to add to the existing
oaths and declarations, to multiply the tests that are
already so highly objectionable. He suggested that
the " elected" should be compelled to give pledges as
well as the electors, that declaractions should be made
against " bribery" as well as against " accepting of
bribes." For this purpose he proposed "that
every Member, before taking his seat, should
make a solemn declaration that he had not,
agent
by himself or with his knowledge, by his
on hi 3 behalf, by any gift, loan, or reward promise,
agreement, bargain, or security, proqueed or induced,
or endeavoured to procure or induce any person to
give his vote to him, or to forbear gis ing it for any
other person, and that he would not hereafter make
any such gift, &c., or discharge any such promise."
There is no doubt that such a provision would be
more efficacious than the present law on the subject,
and it is by no means impossible that many who
would indirectly encourage breaches of the law, by
tempting others to accept bribes, would yet refrain
from making distinct declarations, having all the
force of oaths that they had not been guilty of such
proceedings. We fear that such persons form a more
numerous class-than Sir Ron ERIC PEEL was inclined to
beliZve when stated " that he was not disposed
to legislate for such gentlemen." It would, however,
give the unscrupulous and dishonest man an advan-
tage over his opponehts, and might possibly give seats
in PaTliament to,thcise whom it was most desirable to
exclude. It would not either meet the numerous
instances-lvhemother influences than mere pecuniary