The Sun. — 1859-08-01 (London, England)

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE. THIS DAY.—Morning, 3h. 26m.—Afternoon, 3h. 48m. To-Molutow-Morning, 4h. 10n1.—Afternoon, 4h. 32m.  We are fast coming within view of the end of the present piecemeal and fruitless session of Parliament. The House of Commons has all but got through the very last of the estimates. Ministers have nearly murdered the very last of the innocents. Mr. GLADSTONE has presented us (with a flourish) with his "little bill." Sir CHARLES WOOD to-night is about to favour us with his ! Jowt BILL has his hands already deep in his capacious pockets—he is fumbling up (already) that inferial fourpence additional, to be in readiness for his old enemy the Income Tax dun in October. He is grumbling loudly enough while ho is about it—but he'll pay, as is his wont, as a matter of course. There is some comfort he thinks, however, in knowing that, at last, he will be rid for a little time of the din and hubbub of all that useless palaver, in 1859, down at Westminster. Sympathising with him heartily enough in this— we wish Farmer BULL and his family a pleasant time of it now in their autumn leisure down at the seaside.  It is a melancholy fact, as we intimated on Saturday, that as yet, while the Election Committees have gone far to exonerate the Conservatives from all blame whatsoever, they have in every instance condemned the Liberals, as proved by incontestible evidence given upon oath, guilty of bribery and corruption. Six constituencies have been already hauled over the coals—they have trod barefooted over the burning ordeal of a Parliamentary investigation Ashburton, Aylesbury, Dartmouth, Gloucester, Norwich, and Wakefield. Three of these six committees of inquiry have involved he return of those doubtful representatives Mr. SCHENLEY, the member for Dartmouth, Mr. LEATHAM, the member for Wakefield, and Mr. ASTELL, the member for Ashburton, The remaining three have had to decide whether double that number of seats were vacant or were validly occupied namely, whether Messrs. PRICE and MONK were properly returned for Gloucester, Lord BURY and Mr. SCHNEIDER were properly returned for Norwich, and whether Messrs. SMITH and BERNARD were properly returned for Aylesbury. Six committees have already delivered in their decisions to the House of Commons, and these decisions are precisely as we have here already intimated. In each instance, without exception, the Liberal is declared to have not been duly elected —his agents having been guilty of the grossest bribery and corruption. In every instance, on the contrary, without exception, the Conservatives have been duly elected—their agents not having been shown to have in any single instance been guilty of bribery or intimidation. Mr. SCHENLEY, for example, is a Liberal ; as such we are doomed to find that in his case the committee of inquiry resolved, " That the late election for Dartmouth was void by reason of briery and corruption by Mr. SCHENLEY'S agents, and that Mr. ICHENLEY was not duly returned." The decision of the committee appointed to inquire into the late election for Wakefield, in declaring the Liberal member there to be unseated is yet more explicit—it expresses itself thus: "That WILLIAM LEATHAM was not duly elected a burgess to serve in Parliament for the borough of Wakefield ; that the last election was void ; that the said WILLIAM LEATHAM, by his agent, had been guilty of bribery ; that it had been proved that four persons named JACKSON, and others, had been bribed with sums of £lO, £3O, £2B, and £lO ; but that it had not been proved such bribery took place with the knowlege of said