The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-27 00:00:00

eb.eninnr

LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1846.

Godfathers and Godmothers, in the naming; of c

the pure occupant., of St. Stephen's, where bribery is pu
down by statute, treating is suppressed by Acts of Pat
liamont, illegal practices are punished by positive enact
meats, and where Committees are sworn well and trul.

o trs the matter of the petition referred to them—where.

in short, no precaution is omitted to make the House .n-
Commons appear to be an assembly of the representa-
tives of the pe.ple, freely, impartially, aad honesty
chosen.

The high principle which prevented Mr. COCHRAN}
from answering any questions relative to bribery, o
money expended, followed him throughout his Parli:,
rnentary career—and, having come into the Hou e o
Commons a protectionist, he felt bound to resign hi_
s'at when, having changed his opinions, he became L
frrc-trader. Taal he changed his opinions conscien-
tiously, no doubt can exist, and although a peerage in
ab-yance, and at the disposal of the Premier, gave rea-
sons strong enough to warrant any alteration in Mr.
COCHRANE'S views, we believe that nothing but a chi-
' Wort ".
IL --.l2E'L'is'ilieaties;, incrii6a tinto'ie GI
the trust which had been confided to him, and to
seek re-election. For, although he had made assurance
of no opposition to his return, and had secured the
ground before hand, a journey to Bridport and back,
the making of divers election speeches, and the compli-
, mentary fatigues of an uncontested return, had all to be
undergone, and were, in themselves, no easy task to a
gentleman of Mr. COCHRANE'S habits. But Mr. CocH
RANE was deceived in his powers of management ; he
forced an opposition upon the truly liberal party in Brid-
port, by an uncalled-for attack upon their principles, and
on the day of polling a majority of ONE was all that Mr.
COCHRANE could show. A petition against that ma- I
jority, alleging bribery, treating, and illegal practices,
came on for trial last Saturday, and the result has been
is deprive the country of his services in Parliament.
We think further inquiry ought to be made into this
matter. We trust the House of Commons, which on
Friday night last was appealed to by Mr. COCHRANE
himself for protection, will not allow that appeal to pass
unheeded by. In little more than twelve hours after-
wards Mr. COCHRANE was no longer in Parliament.
Let irquiry be made, how and why that happened. It is
rumoured that arrangements were made to prevent ex•
posures, and that the fear of bribery, treating, and other
illegal practices coming to light, drove Mr. COCHRANE
out of the field. The House of Commons is bound in
justice to him to pursue this inquiry--the imputation
roust be removed; for if it could be conceived that a
Member who got into Parliament by a compromise,
crept out of it wi/hout conviction of bribery, by compro-
mis,, the entrance and the exit ought alike to be re
corded, and Mr. COCHRANE'S Parliamentary dying speed.
ought to be accompanied by his confession.

Already many meetings have been held of scrip
holders in several of the railway companies, in which i
is manitt•st either that a Bill cannot be obtained duriot
the present session, or that, if obtained, it would inflie
severe injury on the parties whose shares, on a nov
call being made, would become either wholly valueless
or, perhaps, in some instances, still worse, requiring
!iirther sac:rifle*, to have their owners relieved from fur

ther respon4blity, in ord-r that the nff.irg may

wound up, and the b &lane... if any, distrihute
amongst th, parties entitled thereto. When we con.id
the large amount of capital now deposited in thy harp,
of the Accountant •General, amounting in round terms
for Great Britain and Ireland, to nearly 15,000,000/
sterling,. by Lr the great,,r pt.rtion of which might nor
be distributed amongst the scripholders with great ad
vantage to the general monetary interests of the country.
we cannot wonder at an anxious wish existing cm:
the part of those interested to obtain an irnmedi
return thereof, and we only fear that such
an anxiety may be so great as to induce many parties to
overlook the good points of several of the undertakings,
and the fair prospects of ultimate success, with an ample
equivalent in the way of profit for the inconveniences,
expenses, and annoyances, to which the shareholders may
now be subjected. The Government propositiens, al-
though excellent so far as they go, still appear defec-
tive in one respect ; for while, on the one hand, by
the resolutions which are about to become ses-
sional orders, no Bill can be obtained until there
has been the clearly expressed opinion of a majority
consisting of three-fifths of the scripholders, assembled
at a meeting duly convened, with full notice to all par-
ti€ s interested, and a reasonable time to enable them to
avail themselves of that notice, so that it must be through
sheer negligence that any person should remain unrepre-
sented thereat ; and at which meeting there must be
present holders the of one-third of the entire stock, and
.hus no further liability can be incurred without the
express assent of the parties to be charged therewith—

et, in the event of no such meeting taking place, o►

_ . .
even if the further progress of the Bill for the
present session should be negatived thereat, there would
be no means, in consequence thereof, of a return of a
portion of the deposits being obtained; the resolutions
are therefore merely protective in their nature, but no
active step can be taken under them. On the other
/
hand, the Bill proposed affords no alternative but the
total abandonment of the project, or its continuance
under the present system ; there is no intermediatecourse.
The one, the only question which can be entertained at
the meeting, is the dissolution of the company; if that be
carried the concern is, ipso facto, dissolved; if not carried
it remains, with all its objectionable features, as at
present, money being retained, for which there cannot
be the slightest use. It is quite clear that directors,
who have now in their hands a large sum of money,
will not be willing to eurreuder the posseetion of it, snd 1

dren, frequently seem to have a prescience of the acts ()I
their nominees. Odd names foretel odd characters, ano
strange prefixture of words to surnames, prepares us
for strange deeds in the individuals associated with them.
That phenomenon, a fighting Attorney-General, rejoiced
in a multitude of names, which procured him the appel-
lation of ALPHABET SMITH ; and the immaculate gen-
tleman, who last week was Member of Parliament for
the Borough of Bridport, Mr. ALEXANDER DuNDAs
R ,ss WISHART BAILLIE COCHRANE, might have shared
the alphabetical honours with him. Addition to such a
collection of names was useless, and the Bridport Elec-
tion Committee, accordingly, deprived him of the M.P.
which encumbered them.
It is not solely to the names borne by Mr. COCHRANE,
it is to the Parliamentary entrance and exit of that
gentleman, and to the loss which the Legislature of the
country has sustained, that we would direct attention.
In the year 1841 a compromise, which will be found de-
tailed in the report of the Select Committee on Election
Proceedings, gave him introduction into the House of
Commons. His own conduct at the election, out of
which that compromise arose, may be judged of from the
following questions and answers, printed in that re-
port :
" 2418. During the general election of Jttne,lB4l, were you
personally cognizant (I have put this question to every wit-
ness and begged them not to be offended at it) of any act of
bribery committed by yourself or your agents for the purpose
of obtaining votes for you ?—I object to answer that.
"2419. Were you personally cognizant of any treating at
the election ?—I equally object to answer that
question.
" 2120. Were you personally cognizant of any illegal prac-
tices at that election 2—That also rests on the same principle ;
I object to answer it.
" 2422. Have you any objection to state the sum of money
Tent by you in the election 1-1 decidedly refuse to state it.
"2423. From that, lam to conclude that you decidedl3
refuse to state to the Committee the mode in which that
money was expended ?—Most assuredly."
These are the answers of Mr. ALEXANDER DIINDAS
Ross WISHART BAILLIE COCHRANE, as printed it
the report; and it is further stated, that " Mr. TEMPLER
the ag nt of Mr. COCHRANE, claimed his privilege a-
the attorney of Mr. COCHRANE, and refused his evidenc,
because not released by his client from the necessity o,
claiming his privilege."
Such were the circumstances attendant upon Mr
COCHRANE'S entry into the House of Commons. Purit•
itself must have huiled the advert of such an addition r