The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-01-08 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL. STANDARD.

Now, with regard to, ;‘ intimidation," our readers will
recolltect tharvfe have eVie"r described it as an enormous
eligreid A'onewirb VKlfich purity and freedom Of elecL
tioh were altiiietPr'ineOmpatible. The question is, lioW
to Yuk`Un• enrto 'or greatly diminish it, the ballot not
beuit, iii oifi opinion, calculated for either purpOse. In
such cases of embarit'ssmerit, arising from outrages upon
the spirit of all law and justice, the best way of meeting
theniis to look to the analogies of the'constitution. Bri-
-1;1_4 been frequently puniSbed, and sensibly checked
by act of parliament. But bribery is, in its nature, more
easy of 'concealment and more difficult of proof than any
threat orliindicti've 'act by landlord Or superior.' 'There
is, there can be, no want of evidence that threats have
, been uttered, notices served, or ejectments or other legal
processes executed. The receiver of a bribe, again, is a
.partieeps criminis, and will not 'peach for shame; whereas,
the victim of-feafor -Vengeance has no such motive for con
cealment, publicity would injure the other party,3nothini.
We are satisfied, therefore, that the best adapted mea-
• sere FM. the putting of " intimidation " every, where
is the enactniefit of a' statute rendering the attempt to
intimidate, IV:WOO or deed; by any landlord, his Stew-
or election agent; or any person authorised to act
on hiS behalf, peng'as against the party cony icted of
such condUct,—,-tst, by heavy fine ; 2nd, by vitiating hiS
election. If a tenant be turned out within a twelve-
" month after-the election, urileSs' strong-and
gThlind fOr sudh ejectment can be shown from causes
inderieridpiii of the eleetion, such as non-payment
, . • • .
of ,rent, injury to his farm, &C., the tenant so' dealt with
ought to be, entitled to commensurare damages against
his landlord, and the election ought to he declared invalid
-4.4PakiiiiStliim on side such iniquitous acts had
''EMn'petpetrated. We have a fixed persuasion. that. an
act of parliament for such an object might be so framed
' and administered as to set the most dexterous forms of
evasion at defiance • and if an oath wereimpOsed upon
.each • member.' of the House 'of Commons, negativing,
under the pains of perjury, 'that any corruption or. inti-
midation had been practised or encouraged by any agent,
in his name or for his interest, at the late election, or in
contemplation of it,'a powerful safeguard long and vainly
called for, Cyanid be established against electiom crimes:
In our judgMent such a law Would be worth a thousand
ballots.-7 iines~ "

can that state of popular suspicion and its consequent
evils be avpictld ? Thus, then, when we .begin some-
what carefully to examine the real strength of the ad-
ministration, we Aro that it is not so 'firm as it, appears—
and that we have Proved what we have set out by saying,
viz., that the 'very strength of its majority in the Com-
mons may be the cause of its weakness in the cabinet—

it is probable that, ere long, some of the present com-
ponent parts will be separated from each other, and, by
the laws of political gravity, a few fly off to the natural
affinities of toryism, a few remain attached to the
stronger attractions (suited to their several quUlities) of
oirce—.of popularity—of party spirit or of liberal and
conscientious principle.—New Monthly Magazine.