The Sun. — 1868-07-28 (London, England)

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 lasting 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 accusations 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 sympathy of habits and association. Earl RUSSELL, indeed, 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 definition. 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 successful 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 excellence 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 regard 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 candidate 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 something 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