CORRUPTION AT LUDLOW AND CAMBRIDGE. Wines the Whigs last year
were grievously puzzled where to look for a public demonstration in favour of the Bedchamber Ministry, Mr. Aecoeg's return for Ludlow was hailed as a godsend. Loud pteans were sung over the victory ; and the Globe inllesned his readers that the " Clive ascendancy in Ludlow" had been "pros- trated" by the blow. Knowing something about the practices at Ludlow elections, we scouted the notion of the success of either Whig or Tory there being any thing better than a victory of the purse. Of course the Downing Street gentlemen rated us for our unbelief. But what say they to the report of the Ludlow Election Committee, declaring both the sitting Member and the petitioner against his return guilty by their agents of bribery and Denting? Whigs and Tories were equally guilty.. Money was offered and paid for votes with scarcely an attempt at concealment. Both parties knew and said that the return was to be bought. Large sums were spent in supplying the means of debauchery to the de- graded electors; and when Mr. Aseocie succeeded by such means in obtaining a majority, of 4, the Refbrmers of Cleveland Square set up a shout of triumph, and proclaimed that public opinion had declared itself for the Queen and Lord MELITOERNIL It is fit that the fraud then attempted, and with considerable success too, should be exposed. The Secretary of the Refinsu Association went to Ludlow, furnished in all probability with Riform funds, (for Mr. Ascoca publicly stated that he would spend no money in treating,) and then managed the election of the Rtfurne candidate in such a manner as to occasion Mr. Aseoca's disgrace- ful expulsion from the seat he never ought to have occupied tits an hour, and to render hitnself chnoxious to the severe censure of an impartial Committee. Was it for such practices as these that the Refiwm Association was orgauized ? Do the members subscribe funds to be employed in the corruption of constituencies ? Mr. Corrocie has been declared guilty of bribery and treating; but he acted only as agent, and hence, it is to be presumed, under the
direction otitis employers. They are, in that ease, • the proper culprits; and as long as the " Reform Association" exists, the subscribers as a body must be held equally responsible for its malepractices as the Tories fin the misdeeds of the managers of the Carlton Club.
The proceedings at Cambridge were not so barefaced as at Lud- low, but in principle quite es bad. The case has been only stated
hi part, but enough has been disclosed to show the dishonesty of both factions. At Cambridge the dirty work seems to have been nemaged with more skill than at Ludlow. Whether Whigs or Teri es were mos/ to blame, is not determined. The rather amusing evidence of the noted Mr. Lose shows how he was practised upon by the Whigs, and how completely he duped them. Sir liontarr PEEL'S Act appears to have made little difference in lb.! trial of election-petitions. Perhaps it has secured more impar-
tial Committees; but the tribunals are still Very defective. We notice the same waste of time, almost endless wrangling upon the rules dor evidence, and incapacity on the part of the judges to direct the proceedings of counsel..
Previous page
