Bribery in a candidate, however, makes void the election, and a petition complaining of bribery committed, with a view to the last election in a borough, is properly an election petition. But a term of fourteen days is the limited period within which a petition of this nature can be presented, and various onerous duties are imposed upon the petitioner--he must enter into a recognizance to pursue his complaint, and must incur an expense of some hundreds or even some thousands in prosecuting the inquiry. Still this mode of inquiry is now so established that when upon two or three occasions complaints have been sent to me of bribery in a particular borough, I feared to bring them before the House of Commons lest I should be told that the petition was an election petition which could not otherwise be entertained. . . . From this state of things great impunity has been allowed to gross acts of corruption. A gentleman from London goes down to a borough of which he scarcely before knew the existence. The electors do not ask his political opinions; they do not inquire into his private character; they only require to be satisfied of the impurity of his intentions. If he is elected no one, in all probability, contests the validity of his return. His opponents are as guilty as he is and no other person will incur the expense of a petition for the sake of a public benefit. Fifteen days after the meeting of Parliament a handsome reward is distributed to each of the worthy and independent electors. This is the practice against which the resolutions of the late House of Commons were directed. They pledge the House to inquiry not on a question between two rivals contending for a seat, but on a question affecting the character and purity of Parliament. They allow complaints to be made not only against the sitting member, but against the borough; they enlarge the time within which such complaints may be made, and instead of deterring petitioners by expense, they provide that a specific complaint, if fit to be inquired into, shall be inquired into for the sake of the public at the public cost. Such is the proposition approved by the late House of Commons, and which I venture to think not unworthy of being countenanced by a Whig reformer. There are many other abuses in our present mode of elections, to which local remedies might, I think, be successfully applied; nor is there any one more fit or more able than yourself to conduct such measures. Undoubtedly many obstacles would be raised to delay our progress, especially on the part of "the presiding genius of the House of Lords." But I am persuaded that reformers in general have never made a sufficient estimate of the support they would receive, or set a sufficient value on the objects they might attain, by a vigorous attack on particular abuses. THE CHAMPION OF REFORM [Lord John Russell's share in carrying the Reform Act of 1832 was celebrated by Lord Lyttleton in the following lines.]