The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-12 00:00:00

int'tent ar lose who had recently received th tto tl l ' ting as they chose. They were ise they all pleased to vote one IleaPibf . member amounted to this—the 4' a constituent body voted alone iva; r l o i; bised. The noble lord here ref er a fr, which the house had been relies' 1 7 1 e on election petitions. The prese' r o reason for adopting it, that the he3,ttrP, meted public business that it Wa s "14 Luse ; and that the decisions of th e e oe I not give satisfaction, as they nd accurate. To remedy these 1 3 3 , ° 0° isle Act was introduced. And ' Of Lion act over the seats e f iii? ,tion was re fers ed to a Comm te e id that tribunal was further purl mpartial by striking off the named, e, or could be, in any way intere to ; t place, the members were swos( j I protection was the power to C ne them on oath. Now, he ir,, visions and protections did the b°1 11 , ( 1 11 ', d the tribunal to which he wisP, t , o l l l ? A select committee, such as - 0 0_ 4 " or, would not have the power to e' f It was clear to him that none ° b 4 rown round the seats of member ° - 0 7 1 e advailable in this case. What W e t ovf,, isked, of ripping up, before a selee po il; rable transactions that were al l toty ie corporation of Liverpool for the i, he admitted, were very strong' " t ot, funded? If it were possible to 5 01 by the hon. member all the tid y ?, esent mode of deciding election y be e objectionable ; but what cod ° ;e d ' a than a tribunal such as that proflie,!;i ch should have the power to ine a llr/ 0 corruption, but into all that wer e o f 20 or 30 years ? If the prayer they would have the bar of th a t ietitions. (Hear, from Mr. O'Obetis, ,eer of the hon. and learned me A rn te 3te,o ?posed meant, that the hon. an. 0 0 " 1 , statute of limitations by which „Id a lad occurred in former times 0 0 1 ''. iry. (Mr. O'Connel—No, none'lll ne the hon. and learned memb er 3° rases of supposed corruption, 1 04 i. But this was not all that n'" 131 1 i Lof the petition were agreed 0 1. 4 o inquire into the - general histor)4l"„, vas alleged, bad existed for a 10144 This was required for the mer e (L o s 0( ids of their judges against those ' l br ie previous to the matter being Ler Lie had understood an hon. mou e fly P i t se objected to the petition recen s or ne of the mayor of Liverpool yi n 01 't 4 1, he had not made that assern e lert / ier of the mayor presided at th e of admitting that he had misunder ° t 00%! rst instance, he must beg leav e f ay brother of the mayor, that ther e to n, ,mittee. As this allegation bad P ot Loy sd that the hon. member would ° ber Li , his statements. The hon. tee d - e fr ee ,o I that great numbers of the old tbo t o } bery oath. Then, 1.1 he would ask c o )ssible for them to have voted? fo u ✓ which the bribery oath was P e ct'ji ely to retard the poll. That ohlter6 k. sufficient number of the old c ° ls o C the oath. Indeed, the only (05 be t refused was by a party on the ot of given amidst the acclamation s orrf sort. It had been said that the 0 0, ppropriated certain ex t e nsiYe r 4 o hat was a misrepresentation. ;loc. y. it for the improvement of the doog /0,000 arising from the dock e 5 Ai) it was impossible, for the moil , p 1 , 16 ng to the provisions of an act l ot e/ nt occasion it was desirable ' pi gs/ its subject should be removed (if those who were to deal with t... (0 , to a decision with prejudiced r o ,'" oiej se corporation of Liverpool roa d h a d ; and he did not think that theYn j ell ition whatsoever. The works so p IL' ed were of the most splendid i e t bei 11 ire agreeable to his feelings 12 rt jes) tat were the enemies of these e s 0 0'4 matters to theta, because they 0: i t o ect, rather than submit thou e c A with it. One of the first I )l42 e ter ie committee to inquire into thea,,ofi, ion. They ought not to take p sis ' OF le number of electors, . not hee n o reri others, but because they were V o ctiffri Lpprove of a tribunal of such which was to examine allega n silL l fl use which the hon. member for elil! member had said that the la 'oq, y good case could be made outitiot sssion of all the facts and doer 01; 5 4 that he might satisfy his ow o , l , o l'f i the end, that. the statement of lord y. (Hear, hear.) The nobl. n e laving obtained a reformed Lel o put an end to all such Pi - r iet ee iti ,upy itself with ripping u p old 4 plaints to be urged as to the f o ri t LO,/, sat question ought to be trier' ot erb iix it up with antecedent In/ 04 etion. What was the opinion P; this subject ? In a letter wl3/,',411, hat rev. gentleman confessed i'l;tter;4 y years mixed up in election bellerb, vho knew him would easilY o ef elf be, he could not deny that Itytell, scribed for carrying on cou' o urr. ) 1/ , in many instances , for th e ' O % ) ld he, then, be asked put o n e others for . practices whie", te ovil g concurred with the rev. geo7choi ld be wise and prudent to let the ,iti° rely to recur, be again Inv' 00 0 1 te e, etted that the time of the ho to o r • o is stion at a moment when the tt ,oo ortant matters to engage its 5 ( 0 ( 0 1/ or f bribery charged against are'oi/ 1) /e 5 ,f ht be a fit subject for investig t lLß Lions; but the inquiry as to ras different. If they sent oi itt l ia, ' t o Ltee, were they to examine sre ti t clol not. If they were not, In' t th c matters, venture to say th°,oo ..e V, actory conclusion. But stillj pt/J' ' bribery had existed, o° l ' o o 0 0 0 A ie that large number of fre„ e rs o o , ol .K r? Ile believed that anY p dp lace in the case of Era P the ' l O ,l ey ) i the public had been put"we°' / d the unsatisfactory re sultr ee cliog, 0 ,1 a repetition of such a pro j e ol a nd thinking that no case a t P re 1 iency of such an inquirY t ' 1 to oppose the motion- i. „ O , t hee e at the argument of the ho n, t o p r anything, would holel,,!;wever he t of alleged corruption,. Pfloitau'iiielj e had other and more In fair I. That, however, was "iviltsto-0(., r the hod. member for ne gatio n 0 Ltition ; it was not alargyi ? lord (Sandon ;) it Wa s not als0;n(/) een practised for ear s ; but iagistrates of that tow n . h ie de #1 o serve foi the b o rouf beerol a too, at a sufficient case, hn t w as ! tr„je a committee np stairs- a dduc. m ev att e e n r c t e o wries s i t ch wh h e ared bietewo. coo) neg a 1 pro ni . ght, that whether the a i o to- -( tei, t ory ought to be p a n clear o t " p e i dif false, to defen dto hi nl th The case app eare d on na ' r f f l iss over. It was pros ra ctised; t a corruption had been o f the denied the necessity ross co d a the g ice y the existence e punished in the briber 3 5 vi be t° thr° a'? A' the inquiry would , Aeor ve sea most guilty, and Who its was no statute of la i it ' it 01 .) and if s uc h a statute could exist, it could not be pleaded 1)5 ell c ase, wher e th e crime had continued almost up to the tio: it time. Let it be understood that in supporting the mo hi, lolrar inquiry no imputation was meant to be cast on the no iNiit -- k.andon;) it was cast on those electors only who were NJ. He implored the house to do justice in a case where robo,ar!'uption was charged, and where its existence was cor c4,er,le,d. by so many circumstances. If the parties now ac itlnillett that they were innocent, they would be anxious for cl e ' si _'!Y• It was no proof of their innocence that they were so des irous of evadin g it. do ns I n LLNNOX denied that his noble friend (Lord San rs,tl2llterided to throw a shield over bribery in opposing this r oitt ;', ll - He regretted extremely that the hon. member for the tst.,,,„`Y.,ol\yilts had felt it to bells duty to have again brought 11, 4 7 c o o thts question. lie thought the valuable time of . the t are ; ,1!ld be better employed than by raking up the gr!e_v (, - 111),tt:sr:;1;030sd 01-If.eththaonught - the funds of the country could b - tlQ c . o a a ' 1 ) occur in investigation.thisbyp a paying th e expenses thweh threeilcah!.t„w o u x l d . p e , 3 ,, s no imputation of corruption had been made. .Ihe e 4 1 , st " of both the sitting members during the last election were i:or.sr; oudiebrraitheLyt,hethyewesaremoepespn to the inspection of hon. mein itotill not have been wanting ch a t and of course had there - been the slightest opening for a justi q ' oppose the motion because he felt it was an act of in to i h r a it v e th p a r t om ha o d te p d ram a petition. He step ita. e e Lto punish the innocent for the guilty; and by this mea qiiserl persons who had never offended would be disfran ,ielLt , In conclusion, he would merely add that he would 4 ..° 110 man in his desire for purity of election and he was . 1-1 1 ! ) PY that the Reform It'll had worked so well in that respet. )40ret'lembered the arguments i of the right hon. member for f 4tgo me . . l'ail t b i . rYshire in the last session, "that the example of dtise kilid sl.eg the freemen of Liverpool would operate on h fil e f ' . o l the electors." The effect had been produced without var y e re Of example, and he felt assured that it was not necFs t!Titil:ir tile cause of freedom of election to punish the delin- f I L e /t e e f „ s ° f N, when at that period, and up to the . passing o -4 ich C,l ll Bill, so many hon. members had seats in the house Bir i i ` t . been roost openly and unblushingly bouht. tld 1, • WILLoUGHBy could not concur with the honourable . (144-ia„rile,(l member for Dublin that, admitting the necessity 1 ' 0 40' 41 7, a select committee' was the proper tribunal. He Do Be , .()11t9d, as the basis of his argument, that, for all p:ars tthe ~,,c7s4uodicial enquiry, a select committee of ted eti L t. 1 11 .tribunals. The motion . would t e h s i t s ablish a bad tt 11 4 is it. an d In Practice dangerous without any good result. e di 4: '"e ease ? One class of electors pray, without ceasing, 4, a4r.thehisetnent by bill, of another class by an ex part facto t k i (111 01 , - o lu Of pains and - penalties, which, in effect, will give the NO in bad timer 4 , t l' him disfranschei b C t. '" ) 4 4 s . e Hereat.eiic Political i e j a s objection in limine. Can 'the oln l a po g - w e e n r era to l th e e class of electors who peti- T ch vague and indefinite inquiries ? May a s t ts 9 a t s h y e stemr and of thatp roscri p throughon ? th eoi inquiries u c .i l r a i e s s s t-i f Olts ls n ittee of this house . ° ' Will it not be to expose the ' l n - Pa it; Privileges of the electors of this empire to the chances t T ij e s sa r v ;' of Liverpool,- one _party is arrayed against another in It, wips... and that at the close of a contested elec- I t % e ksii '" Passions are too apt to run high ; and party feelings &Nth Y "'cited. One petition is signed by 3000, prayintgadris :-tleh , I s s einent ; another petition signed by 7500, the con r y : k.tir.r4(ichheeeardrifenorgbesitepniswuiset be fatal to the quiet of any town. It, corporate 44,,, , t t° 4:,: o f e t i h s e a e t t may enter tshue such he abuses, l.snga uir y a s. committee on nowo ti r- The gravamen, how -1/44 0 1.9 e p re se . ;t e p m e . ti e t . i r o s n, is clearly alleged oral-practices at qt e. ., ecti ons of b to serve in parliament. Who, ;' , llis th s vinora it is sought to disfranchise? They are the 411 L 'er t) ' e labourers and hard working men of the town of o ' l ,', 'i l "l ' w , he gain their political rights by a lab ta or k io m u g s saewrvaiy iii -". the£le as ancient as it is constitutional, . im.; h ouseholders clause of the reform bill, one of its h r s. r. 4, Usibl tiCtip• t .e o bjections, —that below a certain . line no man can t 4 14 :t Y tit a i r 4 ,4 1. 4 ) , I i n au p s o f l o i r tic a a l l .ec p o r g iv h i t l ti eg o e n . of The et.itioners state, that "4 of Z the best mode of recognising popular g pop u a r rights, l but h he the ~I BP o l ila , -Alrrterk.)ool would be to . strike oil at one blow the . most of Rat e °I the constitution in that town. The petitioners housel4 et ',as an inducement to this house to proceed, that many , etto rs -- ' 4 I 4. 4° lder s b no inducement. The7are 'F li ght to . be disfranchised will still be voters its the '„ree tae ,', , Is, sir, can e 1 1tf e :eol e „':!Nv, 1 10 are also ten pound householders, out of 3180, Ots;cele ss '`nb.er. Are we then . to attack Can hly we e e a p l o le o ‘N r , and e ( 4 - rer . ire Portio n of the elective body? It ti cl ., 4 ? ( k el uen to become the victims of a powerful inquiry-, iad'err, hear.) Are we to pursue an endle e st e I'eti • l 'te as it must be, when we know, on the showing__ . 1 tver tior ler . r e i , tha t s, that it cannot be effectual ? la kg b Practices were resorted to in 1830. c • Be itissosaid,Cahnonwo fivestie:eirdie ,eg:aeises,i,ll,:ed for this? Is it not notorious-that at that Pari 4e at mass of householders were excluded ? and that i s‘ rti b ,.. di a , A (I ,eliky interested in the choice of ablefireupenrecseen(taan .tteoper coon that occasion, strive to exercise an n Gird ta bin admitted) which . the law denied directly. The It b ra j o ti corrected that vice, and this question, in fairness t o fnot i s c s e,e4 Must rest on what took place at the i t a ra st n e s l o e e c t t i ! o o l n is . h an d a , to rake together the ashes of by-o 1 1 -'4 144 constructive charge against the . electors. Five Itsthou elett'illetabe ll ' een t Inca are interested deeply in this l iet I°4 . oPposite say there were p mal- ractices at the late ijuestion. The Wh y ar st ate is as flatly denied by others. - Amid this contra ilot eot NI tilen. he wanted light. If there were mal-practices, tice,eoaterb_rue the constitutional course of petition ? Why lith With : Lo re a tribunal constituted by h lai . v (l a s a ial co f u a r h t e o ti f e j h u s s ; c ol j a ot reroper powers to exercise t..e ju lc. T his Li ti:i., has to a committee under the Grenville act? . . is irresistible. trit. ,, t . 4 40...e0t been followed, and theinferen of the c i e wtitioners, and fl ux a ' . l ! wtotniake up for the !aches 14,tlie ilia lte , tribunal, as dangerous as it is unconstitutional ? def e r Fiiii,e•:/,onjections are to . the committee itself. This house thi a ' e ts i 4 ti : e le matters of a judicial . nature ; m th . e „ r e e es a . re E ra r d e ic ry a i l that Constitution of its ordinary coin lit 4(.; 4B hire ; ca ll be done will be done by the hon. member for l 'elia a ' o 'n w„hose honour and . integrity he . had a ingst pe ttP• 4 bias • t he committee will be comprised of parties haovn ,44..t'kJtidge4ssor°ll, the question, for or against — a . bad qualification that or th .,, J__,ltrY• The ordinary committees are bound l b l y m n s o e %,,„. liea:-,,_`ceoents. Attendance cannot be enforced . _ - '4e Loe b • • t hear the end; and perhaps ''t WllO h egiailing may no • •cl The membe .rs l ik t4e „, ear nothing may come in tane e. . . 10114,°Culittee cannot be sworn, no evidence can be vi t ot . er the sanction of an oath. Grant the committee • a liket to °l4j eting gossip—he could not call it evidence—may t y ray f 44 1i 11°11 .? . r e i t e he d r ' — a perfect chaos, which . will de x fy tr t a h e e t a e b e i e i 1 4 0 ,Zlit to II s the member for Wiltshire ? to e. 4,14 Pule to a f the t 444:iulries on the ground of principle, the inetp.ciency o _ . just and fair conclusion. He objected to li)sa i t ),and the weakness of the case or its merits, and would t,t t, p e t ,,plotion. N l ,' InOtilSoN said that the question was, whether a case I,ol,ttdiribery and corruption existing amongst a large )ody t ,, Ati v Z , re should be sent - for inquiry to a select committee. c, 14 N 4 the real question, and not what were the motives or Itl :Qt' particular individuals. If a case were made out ha tli e * ( tektuch inquiry, it was the duty of the house to interfere, V . b . , e ille 1 prevent such practices in future. The notoriety of II l 'hi? ,, nd. the circumstances stated by the hon. member for iil, 4 ,,ltr h t Were in his opinion sufficient to warrant the house i t it - a mv ill i N•he matter for inquiry to a select committee. The lif: 4 hi'kt did not reach a case of this kind, and, therefore, the t, - * tic stl llect for investigation in the manner proposed. * clie t ir m a 4 ,„ k uPported the motion. The parties who presented en,ity t w a a lere deterred from proseeutmg the in_q y d at t h h a a s t , h eet," e ; bui, Y ,L9 L the enormous expense which woulda u t i t r e t n h . barg e d 4lob-,, at was no reason why the gross practices to 4'" thaPl.: s hould be allowed .to pass with impunity. f li i e th-- , 4t u 11 1 , th,--„'s. hon. friend, the member for publin, ht would Sri k s `ttti,, - Ib . :' e l e a e he had . given, that an inquiry mig ins ° ti: tili e t lece sstiti se of bribery on the par Ile pi ll the c andidate i for it was t of a losing, as well as' eei l NIA th e °ll 9 e ase as in the other . In the present case At, (111„ te ,, , aunlission of the r• to"aent ' l , ° Y the noble lord . Sandon,) vas l in itself a strong t,„ , e n o le 1 inquiry tt toil th w l the should take place.' He would beg whether £14,000 ..was S ANoor i „' as had been alleged.- ,;vas the whole expense t liti q g he had t as understood to reply . that . the which only wasexpense s th ° PaY Iva that of the hustings, 44 e sum rnetic s Air 1% H 1 1a • ' led ' 4 (4 ev er of the *1 :14 4 j 4 3 theE noble th4 t that was impossible—he did not mean Witte lard k ste N ,1141,14,ejoeutiraxreciN IvießoaTlTlu:cestind,,uer coerrleord was concerned, for he had no doubt it wasNsv i: o w f e w ll h k at no h iv e n ha t d h s a t t at t e h d e , re as m f .e a r r e a c s o t m he . CY andilie agents ac ting and it was to the expenses which and was of opinion that ' ir t , isuld be cevered eup b uryoyozfii: e oo n d .b h e e en said 'it 'was impossible that 14 pll tl ll'.at' e ni le n cti s o t n y_ ,s looked upon the reform act as a 4 t ?; i n at No ttl,.!k;sll.tqp.pol sub,sequ the house ought net °f ah transactions that had occurred pre wil 1,, 2-t - any case should be • t o the inquigri;:etahaotfhaandybceCrniurntsidtia.- e out in future, he would be ) 41 , to go into it. t'llittiyi:r. GLAnsTorin said, I cannot wonder at the votes which „..lallt onmembers have declared their intention of giv . inF . t s his , L I. t() the When e I perceive the false impressions they have mimeo .ip ho existence. of bribery at the late election for Liverpool. 4, friend, the member for Middlesex, is not sufficiently credulous to believe that my noble friend is correct in stating the expenses on that occasion not to have exceeded £1450, be cause, I presume, he thinks no one but himself can conduct an affair in an economical manner. Now, as I know that he is fond of looking into accounts, I can, to-morrow, show him the account rendered by the treasurer of the noble lord's committee, and I feel sure that Aiwa' satisfy his economical mind. It is not, however, my intention to take up the time of the house or to risk weakening the strong case that has been made out by my noble friend, further than by saying, that there appears to me to be a general misconception as to the existence of bribery and corruption at Liverpool. We have been told, that from the highest individual to the lowest, one and all, are corrupt This is alleged in a petition that was presented by the honourable member for Wiltshire, and such was the indignation excited by it in Liverpool, that a counter petition was, in the space of forty eight hours, signed by almost 8000 individuals. I think, sir, that some weight will be attached to that petition when I state, that either 1350 or 1450, I forget which, of the persons that signed it consist exclusively of clergy, magistrates, bankers, merchants, and brokers ; and, therefore, that when we recol lect that of the 3000 who signed the petition presented by the honourable member for Wiltshire, only 30 or 40 were persons who frequent the principal commercial news-room in Liverpool, at least equal importance is to be attached to the petition pre sented by the noble lord. The respectable part of the com munity spurn the charge that has been made against them. Undoubtedly, sir, bribery and corruption did notoriously exist at the election of 1830, but 1 contend that they might have ex isted any where else under similar circumstances. The right honourable member for Manchester might have introduced a similar system if he pleased among his constituents. I say, that that election was the creature of circumstances, and was a most extraordinary pioceeding from beginning to end. But, sir, my main object in rising on this occasion was to answer the very sweeping accusation of the hon. and learned member for Dub lin, whom I regret that I do not now see in his place, (Mr. O'Connell was in another part of the house,_) against, what he terms, the bribing cycle of the friends of Mr. Canning. The hon. and learned member has, however, attempted to turn that body to his own account, for he made an attempt, I am happy Ito say an ineffectual one, to deprive me of a seat in this house, by denouncing me to hose whose suffrages I sought, as the spawn of a member of this corrupt cycle. (Hear, hear, hear.)* But, sir, I am proud to say, that in no part of Ireland has the honourable and learned gentleman less influence than in the borough which I have the honour to represent. (Hear.) He has stated that he recollects Mr. Wood, the late member for Preston, declaring, in his place here, in 1831, that about 30 of the friends of Mr. Canning were in the habit of subscribing large sums of money, for the purpose of procuring his return by corrupt means, and that the patronage of the borough was vested in these gentlemen. If the memory of the hon. and learned gentleman, which I am inclined to think by no means unsound, does not fail him, he might have added, that I stood up in this house and flatly contradicted the statement made by the then member for Preston ; but this does not appear to have suited the purpose of the hon. and learned gentleman. I then as serted that there was no such distribution of patronage; that the friends of Mr. Carmine. in general, undoubtedly diet recom mend to him persons to fill vacant offices ; and that such was the best mode of enabling him to make a right use of his patro nage, by ascertaining who were most deserving of it. And, sir, what is the fact? In 1812, when Mr. Canning was first in vited to Liverpool, he was out of office, and not likely to return to it. The constituency of that borough was proud to obtain him as its representative; and that motive could alone influence it, as he had no patronage to bestow. I am, therefore, happy to have it in my power to refute the allegations that have been made against a highly respectable body of individuals, on whom no 'suspicion ever rested to warrant such imputations. Lord J. RUSSELL said that there existed so many reasons why it was difficult to prove bribery before a committee, unless the house assumed some of its ancient inquisitorial power, that there would be no possibility in many cases of punishing corruption. The Liverpool election of 1830 was confessed ou all hands to have displayed one of the most scandalous scenes of bribery that had ever occurred. He thought there was a case for the appointment of a committee of inquiry, but that it would be well to postpone naming it till a future day, when it could be chosen by lot, a manner which he considered prefer able in the present instance to the ordinary practice of the member moving for the committee nominating the members of it. Lord SANDON declared that if the committee were impar tially chosen, and only instructed to inquire into what had occurred at the last election, he was ready to withdraw all objections to the proceeding. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was of opinion, that if the elec tors had not resorted to their old practices at the last election, the house ought not to notice what might have occurred ante cedently to that period. But if it should appear that there had been corruption at the last election, let the parties be punished; and, further, let the inquiry be then carried back, and embrace what had occurred at former elections, with a view to probe the corruption to the bottom. Lord J. RUSSELL observed, that the noble lord's manner of meeting his proposition was extremely fair. Ile should move a resolution, instructing the committee to report the result of the inquiries into the proceedings of the late election. Colonel WlLLiams said it was natural to conclude that the last election had been attended with bribery in like manner as preceding elections, on the ground of the acknowledged cha racter of the borough. Mr; SHEIL observed that a new question had been started which differed from the motion first made, inasmuch as it limited the inquiry of the committee to the late election. Grampound had been disfranchised for corruption antecedent to the election that immediately preceded the inquiry, and a similar course was taken with respect to East lietford. lie did not see the grounds upon which it was proposed to apply a different rule in the case of Liverpool, and therefore wished the inquiry to go further back than the late election. Lord ALTHORP thought that there was no valid objection to the proposed instruction, which was that the committee should go into the proceedings of the late election, in the first instance, and report the result of their inquiries to the house. But it was not unconditionally intended to confine the committee to the last election if there should appear grounds for going fur ther back. If it appeared, however, that there had been no corruption since the household constituency was added, he was of opinion that that circumstance ought to take the borough out of the case ; but if, on the contrary, there was evidence of bribery at the last election, then the inquiry could be extended into antecedent tranctions in aggravation. Mr. ATHERLEY was of opinion that where the old leaven of corruption existed among the freemen, it was impossible for , the reform of the constituency to work well, and that it was therefore necessary, in order to strike at the root of the evil, to institute a narrow inquiry into the question of corporate in fluence, with a view to the adoption of such a course as cir cumstances might appear to require. Mr. GOULBURN objected to establishing a precedent for the trial of election q . uestions before committees otherwise consti tuted than according to the provisions of the Grenville Act. Mr. BENETT hoped that when the committee should have once touched upon a case of bribery in the last election (assum ing the existence of corruption on that occasion,) it would be permitted to carry the chain of corrupt proceedings back to preceding elections, with a view to justify a heavy measure of punishment. The resolution for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the matters complained of in the petition of the in habitants of Liverpool (presented Feb. 21,) and to report the result of their inquiries to the house, was then agreed to. On the resolution that the committee do report, in the first place, the result of their inquiries into the existence of bribery and corruption at the last election for the town or Liverpool, beine. put, GOULBURN repeated his objection to the appointment of a select committee. Lord J. ltussxm. said that the ground' on which he had al ways been an advocate of committees of this kind was simply the following :—he considered election committees under the Grenville Act as extremely well calculated to decide questions arising.between members returned and individuals claiming to sit in Parliament, but not calculated to promote the general in terests and well-being of the electoral body. Mr. GOULBURN observed, that the noble lord was not ac quainted with the operation of the Grenville Act, which did not proceed to decide questions between individuals , _ but to de termine as to the fitness of members returned, though petitioned against by persons not claiming to be returned themselves. Mr. Wasori said that the Grenville Act applied equally to cases between man and man, and to those arising between members returned and electors. After a desultory conversation, in which Lord Sandon, Sir E. Knatchbull, Sir J. Wrottesley, Lord Althorp, and Lord John Russell took part, the motion was carried. It was moved by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and carried, that the said committee should be chosen by ballot—that the election do take . Place on Tuesday next,—and that the said committee should consist of 15, 13 to be chosen by lot, and '2 to be named by the house. THE LIVERPOOL" STANDARD. IRISH PRIVY COUNCIL. On the motion of Mr. O'DWYER, a return was ordered of all the salaries, fees, &c. received by the members and officers of the Privy Council in Ireland. Upon the order of the day for going into a committee of supply being moved by Lord Althorp, Mr. O'CONNELL took that opportunity to ask the noble lord whether he would be able to fulfil his engagement with regard tothe Irish church reform bill, and whether the bill would be the aPer this week. Lord ALTHORP said that the only delay that now intervened was occasioned by the copying out of the bill, which would be ready immediately. Mr. Hums wished to know whether his Majesty's govern ment intended to act upon the report of the committee which had been appointed three years ago with respect to the laws of debtor and creditor, and whether there was any bill to be brodght in founded upon that report. Lord ALTHORP said, that in a conversation which he had recently with the Lord Chancellor, he told him that he (the Lord Chancellor) had been considering the subject, but it certainly had not as yet been under the consideration of the cabinet. Lord G. SOMERSET asked when the report of the poor-law commissioners would be ready to be laid before the house ? Lord AL•rnoRY said he could not answer the question at pre sent, but if the noble lord would repeat it in a few days hence, he (Lord Althorp,) having had in the mean time an opportu nity of communicating with the commissioners, would be ena bled to answer it. Mr. HANDLEY, in reference to the Arbitration Bill, which had been in the last session introduced by Lord Tenterden in the House of Lords, and passed through that house, wished to know whether it was the intention of the learned gentleman opposite to bring forward that measure again this session ? The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that, as it was, he had really too much already upon his hands to accede to the request of the hon. member. He begged to observe, that he considered several clauses in the bill alluded to as extremely objectionable, such, for instance, as imposed a forcible arbitration. If, how ever, any hon. member would select the salutary clauses from that measure, and embody them in a bill, he would give it his support. SLAVERY. Mr. F. BUXTON begged to say, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord, the member for Buckinghamshire, on a former evening, that he had not withdrawn his notice of motion with regard to colonial slavery, which stoodior the 19th instant. He would not withdraw it unless his Majesty's go verntiaent would come forward with a satisfactory measure upon that subject, and no measure would be satisfactory that would not embrace an entire and immediate abolition of slavery.— Whatever measure government had to propose should be brought forward immediately. Now that so many dangers pressed with regard to the colonies,—now that there was a pro bability of a servile war unless this question was speedily set tled, no delay whatever should be interposed to obstruct that settlement., and he would warn the West India proprietors not to lose the opportunity which was now held out to them. WISH TITHES. Mr. SHIEL wished to know whether it was the intention of His Majesty's government to introduce any measure with res pect to Irish Tithes? Lord ALTHORP said that it certainly was the intention of go vernment to bring in a measure respecting Irish tithes, but that he could not at peesent state when that measure would be introduced, SUPPLY.-SUGAR DUTIES. The house having then gone into committee of supply, Lord ALTHORP rose , and said that the first resolution which he had to propose to the committee was one with respect to the sugar duties, and he did not feel that it would be necessary for him to go into any detailed arguments upon that question. As he was about to propose a resolution which went to continue this tak upon sugar, he begged t.) observe, that he proposed it upon the ground upon which ail taxes must depend—namely, that it was required for the service of the state. He did not think that the state of the revenue was such, taking into account, too, the other questions of a fiscal nature that were likely to come under the consideration of the house, as to enable him to propose such a reduction in the duty on sugar as would be calculated to give any substantial relief either to the West India colonies or to the people of this country. Aware as he was of the distressed con dition of the West India proprietors, he would have been ex tremely glad if he could, consistent with his duty, propose a large reduction of the sugar duties. A small reduction of the duty would be productive of no advantage whatever to them, as unless the duty was so far reduced as to reduce the cost of sugar all over the world,, or to give them, in effect, the monopoly of the market in this country, a reduction of the duty, without doing them any good, would only cause a diminution in the revenue of the country. Under these circumstances, he begged to propose as a resolution for the adoption of the committee, that the duties upon sugar and molasses imposed by au act pas sed in the first year of the reign of his present Majesty should he further continued. He would add that though this resolution did not specify the time that the duties were to be continued, it was intended to continue them for a year. This resolution gave rise to a desultory conversation between Mr. W. Whitmore, Lord Althorp, and several other members, in the course of wich,. . . Mr. ItUTHVEN moved that the chairman do report progress, which was negatived by a division of 8 in favour, and So against the bOn. gentleman's motion. The resolution was then agreed to, and the remaining reso lutions having been put and carried without opposition, the house resumed, and the reports of the committee was ordered to be brought up this day. The Solicitor-General brought up a bill for the limitation of suits and actions relative to real property; also a bill to amend the laws relating to dower; also a bill to amend the law of courtesy; and a fotirth to amend the law of inheritance. They were severally read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday next. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned at one o'clock. LIST OP THE MINORITY Of eight who voted on Mr. Ruthven's motion that the Chair man Report Progress of Committee on Sugar Duties. Baldwin Dr. Cork City Hume J., Middlesex Barry G. S., Cork County I O'Connor F., Cork County Faithful G., Brighton Ruthven E., Kildare County I Fielden J.,Oldham Vigors N., Carlow. THURSDAi. The house was occupied till a quarter to 5 o'clock in ballot ing for committees to try the merits of the Hertford and Newry borough election petitions. The SPEAKER informed the house, that the recognizances of the petitions against the returns for the boroughs of Harwich, Barnstaple, and Warwick, had not been duly entered into and perfected. The orders of the day for considering those petitions were ac cordingly discharged. Mr. BOLL ING presented five petitions in favour of the Factory Regulation Bill, with the prayer of which he could only par tially concur ; from Bolton-le-moors for increased facilities for the sale of beer and ale, to which he was wholly opposed; and from Bolton, signed by 11,500 persons, praying for a reduction of taxation, particularly the assessed taxes, and the taxes on tea, coffee, sugar, and other necessaries (a laugh) for a repea of the corn-laws, (continued laughter,) and for universal suf frage, annual Parliaments, and vote by ballot. (Great laugh ter.) He should be neglectful of the interests of his consti tuents if he did not support the prayer for a reduction of taxa tion, particularly as it applied to the staple manufacture of Lan cashire—cotton ; and he should be wanting in duty to himself and them if he did not express his dissent from other portions of the petition.. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from an individual namedl Fletcher, against the intended measures of coercion towards- Ireland ; and a petition from the same person complaining of the prevalence of bribery . and corruption during the late Nor wich election, and praying that a commission might be ap pointed, according to the precedent afforded by Mr. Wynn's act of 1802, to inquire into and expose those corrupt practices. Mr. O'CONNELL would take advantage of that opportunity to state, that he had received very many petitions from all parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, against the Irish coercive bill, which he was only prevented from presenting by the regu lations of the house touching the presenting of petitions. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the petition which the member for London had presented relative to the Norwich election was calculated to excite a prejudice against the sitting members pending the consideration of the petition against their return. _ _ _ Mr. O'CONNELL thought that the prayer of the 'petition for the sending of commissions to collect evidence with respect to corrupt practices was well worthy the consideration of the house. if this practice were adopted a great saving of expense would result from it. Whilst upon the subject of election petitions he would express a wish that election committees would be less scrupulous in declaring that petitions against returns were fri volous and vexatious. (Hear, hear.) Persons who could not make out their case ought to be saddled with the costs. Mr. C. WYNN expressed his entire concurrence in what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Dublin; particu larly on the latter point. Mr. LENNARD supported the prayer of the petition. JURY SYSTEM (IRELAND.) Lord ALTI.IORP said that before the hon. and learned gentle• man brought forward the motion of which he had given notice, relative to juries in Ireland, he wished to inform him, that, in order to redeem the pledge which he (Lord Althorp) had given last session, it was the intention of government to introduce a bill similar in principle -(though he would not answer for it being precisely the same in all its details) to the bill which was brought forward by them last session, and lost in the other house. The bill in the present instance would be introduced in the other house, and if when it came down to this house it should not give "satisfaction, it could be-altered. Perhaps, after this statement, the hon. and learnedmember would not think it necessary to bring in his bill; if, however, he should' do so, he (Lord Althorp) would not object to its introduction, but would reserve to himself the right of opposing it at a future stage. Mr. O'CONNELL said that he placed unlimited confidence - in the good faith of the noble lord on this point; and he knew that it was owing to no default on his part that the bill which was introduced last session was not carried. The bill which he was now about to introduce differed in some respects from that of the last session, and therefore he thought that he had better explain its objects to the house, and then, if the noble lord would adopt it, he would most gladley see it placed in the hands of the government. He would not long detain the house in explaining the nature of the bill which he proposed to introduce. By the llth of George IV.. the law with respect to special juries in England was altered, and substantially amend ed. Up to that period the power of selecting special juries was vested in the Master of the Crown-office, in the King's Bench, and other officers connected with the courts ofjustice. Under this system frequent complaints were made of juries being packed. At length one of the judges said in court that if by the allegation, of juries being packed it was meant that they were selected by the officer, they certainly were :packed. The subject was shortly after brought under the • consideration of Parliament, and the practice of selecting them was abolished. He would now put the house in possession of th e mo d e of selecting special juries in Ireland. Notwithstanding the statute of 12 George 1., c. 4, which enacted that at every Michaelmas term the sheriff should inquire by inquest what was the num ber of freeholders in each barony, and return them as a grand panel from which to select juries; the practice was for the sub sheriff to return from 100 to 700 names according to the - extent of the barony. The result was, that the Crown had the abso lute choice 'of the jury, by means of 'an unliinited right of challenge in criminal cases. One of his objects was to make the law with respect to the right of challenge the same in Ire land as - in England. In the former country the Crown pos sessed an unlimited privilege to *set 'aside jurymen; without assigning any reasonable cause. So long back. as Edward 1. it was enacted that the Crown should not exercise the right of peremptory challenge; but the judges had contrived to repeal the law, for they allowed the Crown to 'set aside jurymen with out limit, who were to stand by until the panel was exhausted, and that never was the case, because the Judges had the power to make the sheriff enlarge the, panel. He knew th a t a t one particular trial the Crown had set aside no less than 132 jurors. In cases of misdemeanors private prosecutors had the same advantage, and the effect of the practice was most pernicious. A most respectable 'solicitor, practising in the Court of Chancery, was tried for conspiring to.evade the bankrupt laws, and the party prosecuti ng him took pains to set aside almost every one of the jurors who did not'belong to a society called the " Friendly Brothers." There were eleven of these friendly brothers on the jury, and that respect able 'solicitor, in the teeth of the clearest evidence of his innocence, was convicted. Lord Manners looked over the whole of the evidence produced on the trial, and so convinced was he that that gentleman had been wrongly condemned, that he at once restored his name on the roll, and the other judges followed his lordship's example. This was a very strong instance of the bad effects resulting from the'existing practice; and he insisted that it was a state of law that ought not to be continued. The mode in which he propos e d t o alter it was by introducing a principle familiar to the'law. Since the time of Edward 111. the system of balloting for juri es had existed. It had been adopted in some cases in Ireland, and that house had sanctioned it by establishing it as the means of selecting special juries in England. He proposed, th er ef ore, th a t t h e . same principle should be acted upon in criminal cases as in civil, and that out of the grand panel returned by the he would leave the Crown prisoner the right of .peremp tory challenge, and allow the the privilege of vhallenging on showing a reasonable cause; but he would review the statute of Edward 1., and deprive the Crown of the power of setting aside jurors without limit. These were the provisions of the bill he intended to submit to the house, but if the noble lord opposite informed him that government would, before the Introduction of their bill into the other house, take the latter part of the subject into their consideration,—he meant that relating to the choice of juries by ballot,—he would willingly withdraw his measure. The hon. and learned member then moved for leave to bring in " a bill to amend the laws relative to special juries and juries in criminal cases in Ireland." Lord Ai - Auntie said that, though the hon, and learned mem ber had stated his object to be the assimilation of the law in England and Ireland, the bill proposed appeared 'to him to go further than was necessary for that purpose. (Hear.) Be did not mean to oppose the introduction of the bill, but be should reserve to himself the right of objecting to such parts of the measure as, upon consultation with' his colleagues, might appear objectionable. LEFROY thought the most mischievous consequences would result from the change in the jury system proposed by the lion. and learned member. He denied that the Crown had the power of packing juries in Ireland; and in proof of this assertion he instanced a case which lately occurred in Kilkenny, where the Crown prosecutor found it impossible to obtain a verdict against a prisoner to whom the commission of a most outrageous murder was by the clearest evidence brought home. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought it most desirable that the law in England and Ireland be assimilated. (Hear, hear.) This he would say, that, juries selected by the officers of the court neve: could command the confidence of the people. (Hear, hear.) But he begged to suggest to the h on . an d l earne d gentleman whether it would not be better for his purpose not to ask too much ? Let him make the law in Ireland as it existed in England. (Hear.) Mr. SilAw thought it desirable to assimilate the law in England and Ireland, but reference should be. had to the differ ence of circumstances uI the two countries. Mr. C. FERGUSSON considered the right exercised by the Crown of setting aside jurors without limit a direct evasion of the law. MASTER OF TUE. REPORTS OFFICE. Mr. Hunt would avail himself of the. present opportunity to ask the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer what had been done with respect to the office of the Master of Reports in Chancery ? Lord ALTIIORP made a reply which was very indistinctly heard in the gallery. We understood him to say that as soak as the Master of the Reports died, the Senior Registrar of 'the Court of Chancery put in a claim to be appointed, as a matter of course, to the vacant office. The Lord Chancellor, not choosing to admit his claim as a matter of right, told the Senior Registrar that it belonged to him to appoint a proper person to the office, but informed him, at the same time, that h e had no objection to give him the appointment, provided he con sented to take it atter a specific notice that he (the Lord Chancellor) intended to bring in a bill to abolish the office altogether, and to transfer the business belonging . to it tx another department of the court. The Senior Registrar had agreed to accept the office under this arrangement. REDUCTION OF OFFICIAL SALARIES. Mr. Huns°l4, after a short speech, of which not a syllable was audible in the gallery, moved a resolution for a graduated reduction in the pay and salaries of all persons employed in the public service, and in all superannuation allowances, half-pay, and pensions, paid out of the public money. Mr. 'l'. ATTwoon felt. it to be his painful duty to second the motion which had just been made by the hon. member ; whose name he did not know, and of whose constituents he was equally ignorant. He was well aware that the noble lords and hon. gentlemen who were in possession of pensions and sine cure could ill afford to submit to any reduction, but he was well as sured that all the productive classes of society had for many years past been conipelled to submit to a much greater reduc tion iu their annual incomes. Mr. liumk: thought that nothing could be of greater impor tance than that the house should adopt a rule for the adequate payment of the public service. To enable the house to lay down such a rule, he would state, that on two different occa sions, once in 1822 upon his motion, •and again at a more .re cent period, upon the motion of the right hon. baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham, we believe,) the house had resolved that all official salaries be reduced so as to approximise to what they were in 1792. In consequence of those motions being seconded and carried by the aid of the noble lord opposite, the lists' of the civil establishments of the country were revised. The hon. gentleman then made some reMark's on the report upon this subject, and said that the scale of remuneration adopted in the public, exceeded that of private establishments, whei e equal responsibilitywas required, and concluded by requesting his hon. friend to withdraw his..motion.for the present. Mr. litcrin,ans,• after stating his conviction that the country had not possessed a better ministry for half a century than that which it possessed at the present moment, proceeded to observe, that if they were determined to go upon the level of low prices, they must make not only the reductions proposed by his hon. friend, but also many reductions much more considerable. Ile knew the state of the labouring classes intimately, and, speak ing generally, he would say that though there might be some exceptions, the whole head was sick, and the whole heart was faint. There was no trade at present in which there was any (ewainued an page 2a2.)