The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-05 00:00:00

THE SUN.

FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 1859.

Every day is bringing to light fresh reasons for
our legislative acceptance of the Ballot, as the only
rational prevention of Bribery. The reports of the
committees—the withdrawal of petitions—the void-
ing of elections—even for that matter the confirma-
tion of elections—one and all go clearly to prove the
imperative necessity there is for some such shield
as the Ballot, not only as an aegis for the Electors,
but for the very Representatives themselves. Given
the Ballot—and there could no longer be any chance
of imputations of " venality " against the voter, or
of " corruption," either direct or indirect, against
the successful candidate. We should then have
none of these Committees of Inquiry sitting—
coming to painful conclusions—and bringing up re-
ports full of the most discreditable revelations.
There would be no possibility then of any member
finding himself placed in that uncomfortable
dilemma described so very naively by Mr
BRIGHT, of course with an apologetic eye askance
at his immaculate Quaker brother-in-law, the un-
seated M.P. for Wakefield. His fraternal (indirect)
apologist, observing last evening :—" A man comes
into this house—a great many men can hardly
tell how they get here—and he finds that
some friends of his, in their zeal and in the heat of
the contest, have done things which are imprudent."
Observe, " things which are imprudent," says Mr.
BRIGHT—" the grossest bribery," says the obdurate
report of the Committee ! The poor innocent victim
of this overzeal on the part of his friends, in the in-
stance at Wakefield, having, with the purest and
most unimpeachable motives, by the way, written
two or three cheques for six or seven hundred
pounds sterling at a time, on the eve of the late
general election, in his double capacity as a
banker and as a candidate ! This, however, by
the way. And now, to return to the
distressing dilemma depicted with so much genial
adroitness by Mr. LEATHAM'S imaginative brother-
in-law, the member for Birmingham—that dilemma
would be impossible to recur under the system of
the Ballot. Even those preposterous persons who
are supposed nowadays to do evil by stealth for
their friends—blushing to find it fame or notoriety,
as the case may be, before Some inquisitive Com-
mittee of Inquiry—even those absurd, and really
to ourselves, no less than to Mr. ROEBUCK, scarcely
conceivable individuals, would refrain from still
continuing to squander hundreds and thousands of
pounds in the dark !—for somebody else !—" un-
beknown," as Mrs. Gamp would say, " to that some-
body !"—and themselves quite unconscious, while
thus adroitly squandering their money for some-
body else, whether that somebody else would ever
benefit the value of one straw for the coin thus
squandered ! The Ballot must necessarily put an
end even to such absurdities. It is as incredible
that any man, agent or principal, could spend
money under the utter darkness of the ballot-box,
in the whirl and turmoil of an election—as that
any one in his right senses would, when travelling
express in a night train, throw banknotes out of
the window of the railway carriage, upon the
chance of their turning up, by the end of his
journey, somehow to his advantage.
The discussion which took place last evening in
the House of Commons upon Mr. ROEBUCK'S
motion, in regard to the collusive withdrawal of
election petitions—if it tended to prove anything,
certainly tended to prove, and that, moreover,
to our thinking, with the clearness of a syllogism,
the imperative necessity there is for the Ballot as
a protective talisman at once for the elector, for the
representative, and even for the House of Commons
itself. As to the resolution submitted to the house
by the hon. and learned gentleman the member for
Sheffield, there could hardly be two opinions as to
its reasonableness. That resolution being simply
as follows :—" That in the opinion of this house
any Minister would be guilty of a breach of the pri-
vileges of the house who would advise the Crown
to confer the Chiltern Hundreds upon any person
charged with corrupt practices at an election ;
and who, for the purpose of evading the juris-
diction of the house, has entered into an agree-
ment to vacate his seat upon the withdrawal
of the petition charging him with such corrupt
practices," To-day the House of Commons will
have an opportunity of hearing from the lips of
Dr. MICHELL himself, the member against whom
this startling motion of Mr. ROEBUCK was directed,
whether there have been any grocnds whatever for
so serious an imputation. The hon. gentleman is
ordered to be in attendance to-day—the debate is
adjourned for the purpose of enabling him to have
the advantage of being in attendance, before the
house itself arrives at any dednite conclusion, one
way or the other, in the matter as brought under
its notice in Mr. ROEBUCK'S resolution. in the
meantime the sentiments expressed on all
sides in the house yesterday were only, of ,

course, precisely the very sentiments that
might have been predicated in the matter in that
most dignified assemblage of gentlemen in the
world. There was but one feeling, there was but
one opinion upon the subject of the motion, though
the House was addressed in succession by the hon.
and learned member for Sheffield—by the noble
viscount, the leader of the administration—by the
right hon. gentleman, the chief of the confronting
opposition—by the present Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and, among others, afterwards, by Sir
GEORGE GREY and Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Mr.
BRIGHT and Mr. WHITESIDE, Lord STANLEY and
Mr. NEWDEGATE. The universal acclaim was—of
course—that no scrutiny, threatened by a petition
ought to be allowed to be evaded by a collusive
withdrawal of that petition, upon the understand-
ing of a nearly simultaneous acceptance of the
office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds. It was
scarcely surprising that Mr. DISRAELI should have
availed himself of that most tempting opportunity,
presented to him yesterday—as he did, though
after a momentary disclaimer of any such inten-
tion. We allude to the remarks made by the
right honourable gentleman at the outset of
his observations, when he said, in the midst of
general cheering " But, sir, I think these
are questions which demand our very serious atten-
tion." Adding—" I shall address myself to it in a
temper which, I think, becomes the seriousness of
the question, and totally free from party feeling, so
far as a Cabinet Minister is in the question. I
shall not remind the noble lord of the observations
he made to me when I sat on that side of
the house, as to my levity of tone with re-
gard to accusations against the Government, and
that before a very long time had elapsed, I
should find cause to change that tone. What-
ever has happened with regard to the general
elections, the results are not of such a cha•
racter as to cause any humiliation to the gentle-
men who sit on this side of the House. (Great
cheers from the Opposition.)" Cheers that we can
hardly, in reason, wonder at any more than we can
wonder at the remark that elicited them—remem-
bering the extraordinary anti-climax of these
Election Committees of late, coming upon the
morrow of those imputations of bribery and cor-
ruption, directed with such a prudish and scan-
dalised air by the then Opposition against the
DERBY Government.

A very intelligent Correspondent, who stu:-ies
nature with a chemical instinct, has been ponder-
ing over the state of the Thames among his other
inquiries into our social system, and has sent us
the following suggestion as to the matter at
issue between the Parliament—the Board of
Works and the public at large. He asks—
"ls it not possible that the peculiar putrid condi-
tion of the Thames, during the past two years, may
have been caused chiefly by the removal of the im-
mense carbon, which, previous to the Smoke Pre-
vention Act, was continually poured forth from the
steamers and manufactories, in form of soot, and
which, conveyed to the sewers by the rain, and
thence to the river, by its powerful antiseptic and
deodorising properties preserved the contents of
the water from decomposition until the tidal pro-
cess carried it from us ?" Here is matter for grave
reflection. If we repeal the Smoke Prevention
Act we shall be placed on the horns of a dilemma.
Shall we be smoked blind, or be poisoned with our
eyes open ? A very pleasant alternative truly !
Our own opinion is that no effectual remedy will
ever be attained until the main drainage sewers be
carried right down to and into the sea. Half mea-
sures never have answered ; and in the present and
daily accumulating bad condition of the Thames it is
idle to hope for any pure relief until the river be
allowed to run clear from its source. Sir S. M.
PETO has endeavoured to force the consideration of
the subject on Parliament, in order to ascertain its
cause and, provide a remedy. We know that the
knowledge of a disease is half its cure ; but in the
present case, Lord PALMERSTON very pertinently
observed, that there was no use in granting a com-
mittee to investigate a cause which was already
but too well known. The state of the river was
occasioned by its being made a common sewer; and
until that was remedied by the Board of Works it
must so continue. Now, this is the plain fact.
And a sad consolation it is, if any ; for when will
the Board of Works begin ? As yet all that we
hear is—words, not works. If ever a community
was cursed by delegating power to a represen-
tative body the long-enduring people of London
is that suffering party. If the Board of Works
would work more and speak less there might be
some hope ; but while their precious time is wasted
by technical jargon and motions ending in nothing,
what benefical result can follow ? To talk of
competitive examinations as a means of promoting
efficiency in the public service ! Why, here we have
a whole board of competitors each jealous of the
other; for their chief rivalry seems to consist in
making amendments on every motion, till at last
there is neither motion nor amendment left ! The
fact—the mournful fact is—that if the public ad-
vantage were more considered and personal vain-
glory cherished less the health of the people would
benefit more. In that Board there appears to be
some half-a-dozen, or it may be even more, whose
sole object seems to be to hear themselves speak,
and speak so often and so offensively that one could
heartily pitch them and their intolerable jabber
into the Thames together.

rill
1, '•`... \Tr--4': C
\ '''';ll., ':: —;:i.a.u7. V
' 9-....„,........,..;
4^..4 ''"/ " -5-4,-,,,
f-. 41: .
_ 4412 t 1 .. .tft
,4 40 n 'in.. '"
" ..) ---- ' -Th; --4;: =P4.C.4 \ '
, ' 1,,,
__,,,,,i.
~,_....:,-, -4. • .....,e, T;() IT - '''