The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

Perhaps we should rather say the steelyards, for as
this part v shifts its position, this way or that, it can
overbalance the heaviest weight on the other side,
not by its intrinsic weight, but by its position.
Our House of Commons is, indeed, in much the
same plight ; but there those that can turn the
scale are the independent members. At Gloucester,
and in similar constituencies, it is the venal who
decide. There are a host of boroughs in the same
position. Respectable and earnest political prin-
ciple on both sides; but the most despicable indif-
ference to every thing but money pronounces
whether the principle of Forward or of Standstill
shall be represented in our House of Commons by
Gloucester. No one professes to doubt the de-
basing tendency, in regard to all parties, of such
a state of things. Whichever principle be best,
putting it up to auction must deprive it of all its
moral, intellectual, and political value in regard
to the bribers as well as the bribed. The
latter, though the lowest educationally and
socially, are confessedly the least guilty of the two !
We are by no means sure that they are not the less
corrupted by the system. Respectable citizens are
now driven, not to understand and argue for their
political views, but to hunt up a rich candidate,
and to use his money in bribery or evading the
laws of the land, and demoralising their more
needy fellow-townsmen.
It is also clear enough, as the Commissioners
will probably report, that there is no substantial
difference between Whigs and Tories. The venal
electors, who are estimated at from 150 at the
lowest to 400 at the highest, in a constituency re-
gistering about sixteen hundred voters, are bid
for with equal zeal by both parties. Each party
thinks it has a majority of those not to be bribed
—each lays on the other the blame of beginning
the bribery at each election ; and probably each has
generally found some plausible case on the opposite
side which has led them to fear that if they did not
purchase freely their antagonists must beat. We
think, however, it is pretty plain that, as one wit-
ness said, under an election by Ballot the Liberals
would win. The people naturally are on the
Liberal side, but Liberal politics arc not worththeir
weight in gold. There can be no doubt that if
neither side had bribed at the last election, the
Liberals, not Palmerstonian Whigs, but Ballot
Liberals, would have been the winners by a con-
siderable majority.

One fact we commend to Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S
attention. All parties scout the Corrupt Practices
Prevention Act. Sir WILLIAM HAYTER, Mr.
PRICE, the lately unseated candidate, and Mr.
LOVEGROVE, Sir R. CARDEN'S legal agent for con-
ducting his election, are all agreed that it is a sham
—a blind—and was intended to be so. We may
add that Lord BROUGHAM himself, in his recent
speech at Bradford, said, as plainly as the
occasion permitted, the same thing. Mr. PRICE tells
us that, " When he saw that every clause suggested
for the amendment of the Corrupt Practices Act
was objeeted to on both sides, he looked upon that
Act as waste paper—as the mere homage of vice to
virtue. It was never intended to have any eject
in checking corruption, and he had always felt a
sort of contempt for it. It was useless from beginning
to end, and he had never heard any member say it
was of the slightest value." Worse indeed than
that ; for the money formerly spent in chairing
processions, &c., was now spent in other ways
—what other ways Gloucester too well knows.
Sir WILLIAM HAYTER himself declared
that he did not know the requirements of
the Act he helped to pass, and his reason was,
" that it was practically useless." That is, Sir
WILLIAM looked well to it in its passage through
the house ; and having taken good care it should
not spoil his trade, did not trouble himself to re-

member its previsions.
And the shrewd Gloucester lawyer, Alder-
man CARDEN'S agent, what says he? "After
his consultation with counsel, and with his
other experience of elections, he believed the Cor-
rupt Practices Prevention Act was mere moon-
shine. The Act might be made much more strin-
gent if there was any real intention on the part
of the Legislature to put down bribery ; but
in his opinion no such intention exists." And
what says Lord BROUGHAM, in his remarks of a
judicial kind, on the subject of electoral corruption
—remarks to which we shall advert more dis-
tinctly ere long :—" Some good would assuredly
be done by requiring a very stringent declaration
from all members on taking their seats, as I and
others—my friend Sir JOHN PAKINGTON among
them—have frequently suggested : a solemn decla-
ration that they not only did not know, but had no
reason whatever to suspect, that any corrupt prac-
tice had been used on their behalf at their election,
and that they lied furnished no money for such
practices, and would pay no expenses. which had
been thus incurred. If it were enacted that
no voter should be employed for hire in any
capacity, a declaration could not be made by any
man having the least regard for his reputation, if
either he or his agents had been guilty, either
directly or indirectly, of bribery."
Yet such a clause as this our legislators refused
to
Simplypas and solely for
s Why
tfhuseedsamcaennroetasobne daosubtthe
fuyl..
refuse to adopt the Ballot. They have bribed, and
they re
they mean to bribe. There is and can be no other
reason for their hostility to such a declaration and
to the Ballot. We should, have both were they
hoiestly opposed to bribery. We shall have,
however, a word or two more to say soon on Lord
BROUGHAM, Gloucester, and the Ballot.