Page:Lippincotts Monthly Magazine-06.pdf/16

1870.] petticoat controlling politics by a double-acting influence. Of course, however, the demeanor of the candidate himself, and even his personal appearance, will count for a great deal. A handsome face, a pleasant tongue and a noble name are almost irresistible with the class of wives who are above the money bribe or the green parasol. Grantley Berkeley indeed tells a story of a candidate who, having had it strongly impressed upon him that he must court and win this feminine influence, was possessed with what Grantley calls the insane idea that the way to win over the bourgeois electors was to kiss all their wives, and acted on this irrational theory, and so set the men hopelessly against him, drew them into open rebellion, and utterly lost his election. Had he confined his attentions within more reasonable bounds, or could he have induced his own wife to do the osculation of the matrons for him, he would doubtless have won his battle. At a recent election for Nottingham, the good-humored and witty Bernal Osborne, having been defeated, declared in a pleasant speech that he owed his failure to the exertions and the fascinations of two ladies who had canvassed for his opponents—Lady Clifton and Mrs. Wright. Still more lately, in the same borough, Mr. Digby Seymour sent his two daughters to canvass for him, but, unluckily for the illustration of petticoat power, the young ladies were not successful.

All this, however, is a kind of influence which may be regarded as elementary and obvious. Given the system of personal canvass, and it follows that the results are inevitably placed more or less in the hands of the women of a family. Given the system of bribery, and it follows that the irresponsible wife will be a willing and a convenient medium for the corruption of her husband. But the illegitimate influence of women over English politics takes a much higher range, and finds far subtler modes of operation, than this. As regards direct corruption, the English system of representation is almost the antithesis of the American. I suppose there is comparatively little done in the United States in the way of direct bribery of voters. I presume that the modes of corruption by partisan organizations, "rings," and so forth, do not attempt much in the way of direct purchase of individual votes. But this buying of votes is as common as it is flagitious in English boroughs, where the voters are, or at least were, comparatively few. Now, on the other hand, either Congress is grossly and cruelly maligned by every newspaper of every party I have ever seen, and every man I have ever spoken with on the subject, or there are always representatives enough whose influence in favor of a particular measure or scheme can be obtained by personal corruption. Money can be used directly to procure the influence and the vote of some member of Congress, or Congress is marvelously belied. But it is certain that nothing of the kind can be done, or even attempted, with the House of Commons. The member of Parliament who has bought his election by the most shameful and iniquitous bribery and treating will himself be personally pure and beyond the possibility of direct corruption. I will not say that there has never of late years been any single instance of such corruption, but I do say that I at least have not heard of any such, and that for our present argument we may fairly assume that the direct corruption of British members of Parliament is wholly unknown. The thing is, in fact, never thought of. The days when Walpole's members of Parliament found bank-notes under their plates at his dinner-table are practically as far distant from the English political life of the present as the days of the Heptarchy. But corruption is a Proteus. It can show itself in the disguise of a ball-ticket or a smiling salutation or a gracious word, as well as in a five-pound note or a green parasol. When it has to tempt the political man it follows the lead of the Old Serpent, and tempts him through woman. Marvelous is the amount of mischief which is wrought in this way through the influence of the petticoat. The member of Parliament who