The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-22 00:00:00

" The soldiers continue to offer violence and provo-
cation to the people." It says further, " Accord-
ing to a secret report addressed to the Govel n-
ment the number of killed, on the Bth April, was
240. Among the wounded were 80 who have since
died. The Government insists on the payment of
the war contribution which had been levied upon
the city." These were the last tidings, by way of
Cracow. And then comes to us a yet later tele-
gram, dated Thorn (only yesterday), which says,
" A proclamation of the Governor, Prince GORTS-
CHAKOFF, states that no assemblage of people for
political discussion will be tolerated, and that
order can only be maintained by the civil
officers of the State, with the assistance of the
military, but nowhere by delegates of the
citizens." There is hardly room there for
a patch up for any mere compromise. The' Polish
people are beginning to recognise before them
nothing more clearly than the threatening bayonets
and muzzles carried by the Cossack soldiery—
hearing distinctly at the same time from Hungary
and from Italy inspiriting cries of encouragement.

The Commons of England cowards ! Who says
so ? Whoever he be let him be brought before the
House, interrogated at its bar, and if he confess let
him be reprimanded by Mr. SPEAKER, and ad-
monished that if he so offend again some severer
punishment awaits him. Old General BENEDER
is likely to get into hot water with the Hungarian
Upper House for calling its magnates in a letter to the
army " dastards." Even GARIBALDI had to explain
when it was thought he styled the representatives of
Italy "lackeys." What then can be too bad for the man
who votes " Gentlemen of the House of Commons "
cowards. Nothing—let him lose his electoral vote
if he has one. If he be a member of the House, let
him be expelled and declared incapable of entering
it again. Honourable members will all agree that
these penalties would be but moderate.
But we must check ourselves—members of the
House of Commons have already, by the hundred,
we are sorry to say, voted themselves cowards. The
cowards have, indeed, outnumbered the brave ; and,
of course, the minority_ could not expel the
majority, let the latter degrade themselves as much
as they pleased. The House of Commons is no
Agincourt or Cressy—numbers are the victory
there ; and victors by the force of numbers are
very apt to forget that they may have behaved
themselves like cowards, each and all. We expect
to see this exemplified again, as it has been exem-
plified before, to-morrow evening. We expect,
we cannot say how many, some two or three hun-
dred, possibly, to pass a certain gentleman into
what, on this occasion, we shall take leave to call the
Coward's Lobby, and to say to him in passing,
" Write me down Coward."
Moralists and Divines have told us, from the days
of the earliest sages, of the blinding power of cus-
tom. Our own custom—the custom of others—we
must open our eyes a little wider than usual to see
its real character. But it cannot be, surely that
Englishmen can play the coward without a twinge
or a blush. A regiment of cowards would each be
ashamed of himself as well as of his regiment. Yet
we are quite certain that a pretty large regiment of
the House of Commons do keep one another in coun
tenance, and confess their want of courage with
out a blush.!

Each sex and profession has its point of honour.
Woman has hers ; man has his ; the Judge has
his ; the soldier his. What is the candidate's point
of honour ? Is it simply to get in—rightly if he can,
if not by any means whatever? But acts against
bribery—commissions of inquiry—Wakefield pro-
secutors—at least reply—" We dare not say so.
Candidates do not tell the electors publicly that
they have the longest purse; or, can get them
most places; or Government contracts; or
that they can get most tenants who do not
vote for them into hot water with their landlords,
perhaps even served with a notice to quit ; or, that
they have influence with the holders of their mort-
gages, or with their bankers. They never speak
on the hustings, or at public meetings, of such
things as their proudest distinction, or as their best
title to confidence. What they do say is, that with
their views and opinions they can most fittingly
represent the electors in the Senate of the nation.
Well, now, follow this up. Why make such ap-
peals ? There can be but one reply. Because a man
who claims to be our representative instinctively
feels that his opinions ought to be the same as ours.
This needs no argument. Representative Govern-
ment is a farce, or any other assumption. It
is the assumption of every hustings, of every
election address. From this it obviously follows
that, for a candidate to mis-state his opinions, in
order to gain an election, or to bribe or coerce
others to vote for him, in opposition to
their own opinions, are equally dishonourable.
By one crime the candidate tells a lie himself ; by
the other he induces another man to vote a lie;
The point of honour with a candidate, therefore,
is—both to be a fitting person to represent the opi-
nions of any constituency ; and, to be returned by
the electors because he is held by them to be so.
So runs the formula from the mouth of every Eng-
lishman who proposes a candidate—"l propose
Lord FITZ NORMAN, or Mr. Alderman COTTON, as
as aft and proper person to represent the county
of -- or the borough of --," as the case may
be ! Why is representative fitness mentioned if
that is not the point on which the electoral jury
is to give a verdict ? why is their verdict asked on
this point, unless they are to give it honestly and
truly and to the best of their belief and judgment ?
Premising these undoubted facts, we affirm that
every member of Parliament who votes against the
Ballot is an electoral coward, and votes himself a

coward. If he have manly confidence in two things
—in his fitness to represent the opinions of any con-
stituency, and in his having convinced the electors
of his fitness—he would exult in the Ballot as the
unanswerable proof of the fact. But if at the hust-
ings he spurns the Ballot, if in the House he votes
against the Ballot, he confesses his fear; he dreads
the elector's uncontrolled, unbiassed judgment.
"'Tis conscience that makes cowards of us all," and 'tis
consciousness that the electors will judge him unfit
to be their member, that makes him shudder at the
thought of the ballot-box when he stands before
them, and when its name is mentioned in the Rouse
of Commons. He blusters against secresy, and
reiterates all that kind of cant, while he knows that
secret intimidations or secret purchases are the means
by which he has gained a position to vote in Parlia-
ment against a secret suffrage at the polling booth.
Does any sane man doubt that cowardice—
inward terror at the thought of facing perfectly
independent electors will not be the sole
motive actuating the expected majority against
Mr. BERKELEY'S motion ? Both theory and prac-

tics show that the Ballot would so reduce the ex-
pense of elections and so improve their morality,
that every candidate, both from pecuniary and social
considerations, would naturally prefer it. Few in-
deed wish to spend money needlessly; few are so
bad as to prefer corrupting their fellow men. But
they quail before the terrible idea of independent
voting ! They have hitherto relied on corrupting by
fear and cupidity. They have sapped the electors'
ITlrtue, and then asked their votes. They dare not face
free men. They know they dare not. We challenge