The Sun.
London, England, 1868-07-28 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1868.

The monotony of the usual proceeding in the
House of Lords last night was pleasantly varied by
an interesting incident. A new member of their
Lordships' House took the oaths and his seat—an
associate whom the haughtiest bearer of an ancient
title must be proud to welcome. Lord NAPIER of
Magdala has won for himself higher and more last-
ing distinction than can be conferred by any letters
patent, and whatever other dignitary of Queen
VICTORIA'S reign is forgotten or overlooked in the
national records, the name of the new peer who
signed the rolls last night will be held in unfailing
honour.

After this agreeable episode the House addressed
itself steadily to its work, which happened
to be of a somewhat tedious and laborious character.
The Earl of MALUESBURY, in moving the second
reading of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Bill,
remarked that he regarded it as the in )st important
part of the work of Parliamentary Reform, for
which the Government had been striving during
the last two years. The character of the House
was more important than its organisation, and
therefore he held the bill in question to be of
higher value than the extension of the franchise.
The removal of the tribunal which should
examine into alleged cases of bribery is
the strong point of the Government measure, and
upon this point Lord MALMESBURY did not
fail to dwell. A tribunal composed of men who are
themselves exposed to the chance of similar accusa-
tions or suspicions could not command the entire
confidence of the public. Without suspecting any
actual collusion, we all know the tendency which
prevails among themselves of a community to look
with an indulgent eye on the failings of their
fellows. The judges will bring to the inquiry a
higher standard of feeling on the matter, and will
be less likely to be insensibly influenced by sym-
pathy of habits and association. Earl RUSSELL, in-
deed, is apprehensive of undue severity on the part of
the judge, who may be, he says, a very learned lawyer,
but a man unknowing in the ways of the world,
especially in the ways of elections. But our judges,
as a general rule, can hardly come under such a de-
finition. They have attained their judicial positions
after years of practice at the bar, and it is not easy
to see how a man can be an experienced and suc-
cessful advocate without knowing something of the
ways of the world. Few professions, we should
imagine, are less likely to foster an overstrained
moral sense, to encourage too exalted an expectation
of human purity and disinterestedness, to make its
members judge from theoretical standards of excel-
lence rather than from practical experience. lt is very
true, as Lord RUSSELL remarks, that neither judges
nor juries are infallible, but the same may be said
of any tribunal whatever. Are we then to stop all
judicial inquiries and real punishments? We have
lately said the noble earl had a very important
trial for aiding a murder. One party was found
guilty by the jury and sentenced by the judge,
who, it afterwards appeared, was entirely innocent.
This proves nothing except that mistakes in human
affairs must be sometimes looked for. We cannot
on account of their possible occurrence let all
offending go scot free. We have acted too
much on the principle of excessive caution with re-
gard to our election petitions, and the result has
been anything but satisfactory. If we can venture
to hang a man after conflicting evidence, we can
surely venture on disabling a too ambitious candi-
date from a seat in Parliament during a given
period. In one case an error is irremediable, in the
other it could be promptly rectified. Earl RUSSELL
says' that an agent may go to a candidate, and say
that the numbers are very close, but that for £5OO
he will secure him 50 votes. If the candidate
agrees, no one will know anything of the matter;
if he refuses the agent may denounce him to the
judge. But the judge will surely require some-
thing more than the unsupported assertion of an
election agent before condemning the accused. One
of the chief advantages of selecting an expensive
legal authority is that he will be accustomed to sift
evidence, to examine witnesses, to extricate the
truth from a mass of conflicting statements. If