Mr. Bagehot, and his London solicitor, Mr. Robbins, have both
been examined this week before the Bridgewater Commission, and their examination has shown how impossible it is to fight a thoroughly corrupt borough on purity principles, even if you honestly intend to do so. Mr. Bagehot's legitimate expenses were £193 103. 2d. He ended by paying in all £1,532 10s. 2d., and this in spite of having the clearest understanding with his agents, which all the evidence confirms, that the election was to be fought on purity principles, and a petition lodged against the Conservatives in case the opposite party bribed. Nothing was said to Mr. Bagehot about money on the day of election, though a bribing purse had really been made up and expended, and he himself judged by the entire silence as to a petition after his defeat that his agents had broken their promises, and that money had been improperly expended. Two days after he was told by his agents that this was so,—and when asked by Mr. Price, "Did they seem embarrassed when they made the communication to you" ?
Mr. Bagehot replied, " Yes. I think I see Mr. Barham's face now." Asked by Mr. Coleridge, "Did you express your dis- guit "? Mr. Bagehot said, " I think so. I certainly looked it ;"- and, in short, all the details seem to prove that Mr. Barham and Mr. Lovibond had made a bond fide contract with Mr. Bagehot not to bribe, and spent X1,339 illegally on the election none the less. Of course Mr. Bagehot ought not to have repaid the money, and ought to have let his name "stink in the borough," as Mr. Lovibond said it would do if he refused. " Having been defeated," says Mr. Bagehot, " I did not like to appear mean. I was asked to stand a second time, but declined doing so, knowing that it would be impossible to prevent the same thing occurring again." But the practice will never stop, till men as sincere as Mr. Bagehot in their intentions, do not mind " appearing mean," both to people who bribe and to people who are bribed.
Previous page
