than for his humanity, who invited to dinner, on an election celebration, all
the parish beadles in the neighborhood. The disturbance which ensued might have been anticipated, when it was re membered that the person-ages thus brought together had each been supreme in his little previously allotted sphere of authority, had each established a peculiar scheme of discipline which had been as rigidly enforced as it had been authoritatively enunciated, and that each had been accustomed to make unrestrained use of such instruments of physical defence or annoyance as had been bestowed by nature. The objection that existed against such a gathering exists against the grouping together in one legislative assembly of men who have been accustomed to be supreme in their own specific spheres.
Every judge who has presided for any period of time on the bench, has ac quired habits of authority which are as obnoxious when introduced into a senate of equals as they are necessary when adapted to a position in which no equal exists. Very few men can pass a day in the undisturbed supremacy of a chief justiceship, without becoming unfit by evening for the courtesies of parlia mentary discussion. Splendid, indeed, have been the services of the English law-lords, and yet, even putting aside the objection we have made as belong ing only to later days, there is not one among the tenants of the woolsack and of the chief justiceships, who has augmented his professional reputation by his parliamentary performances. Lord Mansfield, fearless as he was on
the King’s Bench, was timid in the House of Lords and irresolute in coun cil. When attacked by Lord Camden, much his inferior in legal abilities, and by Lord Chatham, his only rival in oratorical power, on points on which he knew he was right, and which he had
supported 0.1 the bench with that ad mirable logic and consummate grace which belonged to him, he was accus tomed to shiver in his seat, and either
to withdraw from the discussion or enter into his own defence with such great reluctance as to prejudice his cause. When Lord George Gordon‘s mob had sacked the prisons, and barri cadoed the lords, he hesitated, from timidity alone, to advise the king to order the troops to fire ; and had it not been for the superior intrepidity of Mr.
[Sept.
Wedderburne, then Attorney General, the riot would have become a rebellion. Lord Mansfield, in the solitude of his
judicial majesty, presents a spectacle far more lofty than Lord Mansfield, an inoperative ingredient in the House of Lords ; and we believe that with those who followed him, there is scarcely one whose legislative exertions have been creditable. Great legal reforms were made necessary,—reforms which were dictated by humanity and pressed by convenience,—-sinecures were to be
cut down, penalties civilized, and feudalisms abolished; but we believe that, until the lay-lords took the matter in hand, the only ameliorative measure that surmounted Lord Thurlow’s storms and Lord Eldon’s scruples, was a. bill for the prevention of cruelty to dogs. A few words in conclusion on the bearings on the people at large of the system of corruption, whose legislative results we have already noticed. Poised as the electoral body in Great Britain is, between the higher and lower classes, it will be found that, when in a state of
corruption, it casts a sediment upon the strata below as noxious as the va pors it sh00ts to the surface. From the evidence advanced in the House of Commons, in the Sudbury disfranchise ment question, we extract a. few pas sages, which are so amply sustained by the surrounding testimony, that we adopt them, not only from their parlia mentary sanction, but from their indis putable truth : “ Mr. John Crisp Gorday, governor of court of guardians, said: ‘ My opinion is, that the contested elections have done more to injure the morals of the working people in Sudbury, than all the preaching or precepts of all the ministers of the Gospelhave done good.’—‘ How was that efl'ect produced 1’ ‘ One thing only is suf ficient—the bribery oath. Men openly receive money, and yet go up and deli berately take the oath and vote. Some seek subterfuges. as, omitting the word ‘ not,‘ kissing ‘the thumb,” while others seek no such solace, but deliberately per jare themselves.’ ”
Again : “ ‘ A general system of demoralizatiou is produced by the vices and crimes conse quent upon the drunkenness, debauchery, and bribery at the elections in this bo rough.’—‘Large sums I ( the commissioner) presume are giVen at elections 7’ ‘ At the
