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

Entptrial lOadiament. HOUSE OF LORDS. THUUSDAY,MARcn 7. SABBATH BREAKING. The Marquess of Westmeath, Lord Sidmouth, the Earl of Wicklow, Lord Suffield, Lord Byron, the Bishop of Lincoln, Lord llacre, the Earl of Cawdor, the Marquess of Hastings, and the Earl of Roden, presented petitions for the better ob servance of the sabbath. NEGRO SLAVERY. Lord King and the Earl of Cawdor presented petitions pray ing for the abolition of Negro Slavery. Lord Teynham presented a petition from Wakefield for the better reguiation of the hours of labour in factories, and seve ral petitions from Ireland against the coercive measures. On the latter the Marquess of \V'ESTMEATH said, that he was not surprised at the number of petitions that found their way to their lordship's house, when the respectability and influence of the parties, under whose orders they were got up, wero con sidered. IRISH JURY RILL. The Earl of WicKr.ow said, that seeing the noble viscount (the Home Secretary) in his place, he had a question to put to Mina on a subject of some importance, and on which a great deal of feeling had been excited in Ireland. A bill had been brought up to their lordships last session, entitled " the Irish Jury Bill; " and he recollected that it was considered of ex treme importance, inasmuch as it affected the general admi nistration of justice in Ireland. The bill was referred to a select committee of their lordships, of which he had the ho nour to be a member, and on the , suggestion of a noble lord, who also sat on that committee, it was considered advisable that the opinion of the Irish judges on a subject of so much im portance to the admiuistratiou of the law in Ireland should be known. The chairman of the committee accordingly referred the subject to the judges for their opinions. Now, what he (the Earl of Wicklow) wished to kuow was (if the question were not improper), whether that decision had yet been re ceived, and if so, whether it was of such a nature as to warrant government in bringing forward that bill again in its former agape, or with some alterations in its provisions? Lord MELBOURNE said that undoubtedly it was the intention of ministers to bring . forward a measure without delay for regu lating the jury laws in Ireland. He could not take upon turns self to say that it would be precisely similar to that introduced iu the course of last session ' • he believed, indeed, that some alterations had been suggested in its provisions by the judges. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS said that it afforded him great pleasure to be enabled to give a complete exculpation of the conduct of the rector of Portlop, which had lately fallen under the animadversion of the noble baron (Lord King). This exculpation was founded ou communications which he had received from the rev. gentleman, and from many respectable persons in the neighbourhood; amongst the rest from Sir Tho mas Acland, whose testimony would impart credit to any state, . went. It appeared from these communications, that not only no attempt nod been made by the rector to levy tithe on fish, but that no excitement on the subject of tithes existed in the parish at all, and that the rev. gentleman, who had been so falsely accused, had ever since been exercising his duties there. He trusted that the noble baron would express his sorrow at having been the means of calumniating the rev. rector. Lord Kiro expressed his acknowledgments to the right rev. ,relate for having shown him the letters to which he had al laded, but what part of his (Lord King's) statement did they contradict? Why, in none of those letters had a word been said of the burning in effigy of the rector's proctor. The letter Irons the rector, indeed, stated, that he (the rector) had merely a casual conversation with the fishermen. Now, he (Lord Kin") had distinctly stated, that, on the demand of tithe on the Esh, the rector's proctor had been burnt in effigy. Why, it might as well be said that the burning was a casual meeting be tween the effigy and the fire, as that the demand was a casual conversation between the rector and the fishermen. The Bishop of BATH and WELLS insisted that he had pro duced a complete exculpation of the rev. gentleman, and such, he was sure, it must appear to every noble lord who heard it. - Lord W YNFORD said, that, as far as he understood , the de mand which was made for tithe in the instance in question was merely a custom—a mere form—which was never enforced. Lord KING observed, that, in the conversation which had oc curred on this subject before, it had been said that if the leiy iug of tithe on fish were authorised by law, it could be enforced, if not, it would be imposs ible to obtain it.' Now, what he (Lord King) stated was, that for insisting on that demand alone the proctor'svas burnt in effigy. LAW REFORM BILLS. At the suggestion of the Lord CHANCELLOR, Lord WYNFORD postponed the second reading of his bill for effecting a reduc tion in the cost of suits at common law till Tuesday, the 26th of March. The reason assigned for this ifostonement was, the absence of the two noble and learned lords p Eldon and Lynd -Utast. Lord PLtisixarr expressed his anxious desire to give all the assistance in his power towards arranging the different pro visions of the bill, but hoped it was not intended to interfere with the equity courts. Lord WYNFORD assured the noble and learned lord that no such interference was contemplated by his measure. The LORD CHANCELLOR then rose to move the first reading of a bill for remedying (as we understood) certain inconvent -ences in souse branches of the law; but the noble and learned lord spoke iu so feeble and indistinct a tone, owing probably to . indisposition, that the precise nature of the bill could not he iscertained. As far as we could collect, the noble and learned lord said that the subject was one of great importance, but that he would then limit himself solely to stating the objects to which it was intended to apply the bill, without indulging in much -remark. The first and principal object was to carry into effect the recommendations made by the law commissioners, a most useful body of 'men, who, some years past, had been appointed by the other house of Parliament to inquire into the state of the -common law. One of the most important of these recommen dations related to the practice of special pleading; and wit in h con formity with this, the bill would invest the judges the -power of regulating that practice. The next object in view was also most important, inasmuch as it affected the old statu tory limitations ) which were td' be remedied by the bill, as far as regarded their duration, and to be fixed in cases of bond at .10 years. Another provision of the bill was directed to remedy the hardships to which the sureties of Crown debtors were ,liable under the existing system. They were frequently sufferers from the great delay in making the demands upon toe parties for whom they became answerable; the princi : pal debtors were often left for 40 or 50 or even for 70 • years without being called to account, though they might during . that period have been in a state of perfect solvency. The con sequence of this delay often was, that demands were made on the sureties after the insolvency of the principal debtors, which would have been superseded had the principals been applied to iii proper time. There was another provision in the bill which would enable parties to go into the facts of their cases without the expense attendant upon proceeding with an action, which would enable them to put these facts upon record in such a manner as to take the opinion of the court upon them, and re ceive its judgment, in cases were that could be done without incurring the unnecessary expense of bringing an action. There were various other provisions in the bill made, with a view to render proceedings in cases shorter, and to lessen their . expense. He did not feel it necessary, at its present stage, to go into all the details of this bill, but there were some further striking improvements proposed to be introduced by it that he thought it right now to mention. One of these provisions was, and he considered it a very great improvement indeed, to enable _juries se find a verdict for tne interest, as well as for the prin cipal, provided that a demand had been made for such interest previous to the taking of the action; and it further provided, that the interest founded by the jury, if they should so think fit to find, under the direction of the learned judge presiding, should be from the time of the demand. In cases of this kind, it present, where a security did not expressly, or upon the face of it, show that the interest was payable, a jury could not find for the interest, and in that respect the law courts of England were peculiarly distinguished from the law courts in other countries. Another great improvement which was proposed to be• effected by this bill, consisted in the facilitating proceed ings by a reference to arbitration. Their lordships were aware that as the law at present stood, a reference to arbitration was oh extremely difficult thing to procure. This bill provided that arbitration should be lawful in certain cases, and it gave ,the arbitrators the power of summoning and examining wit nesses upon oath, and of deciding upon all the facts of the case. There was, however, no compulsory clause for arbitra -tion contained in this bill, similar to that contained in the bill which had been introduced into that house last session ;b y his late lamented noble and learned friend Lord Tenter- That compulsory clause was omitted from the pre 'dee. hear,) as were also the concomitant clauses, scat bill, (hea r, e n abling the 'court to compel arbitration in certain cases, There was, he repeated, no compulsory power given by this bill, except in a case of arbitration whereen to b one party f proceeding agains t another, full tim e had been givring arthe 'bets of the case as ordered. There was another provision for fiaeilitatiug, the proving of deeds and oth . er documents, whether written or printed, and it provided that, in cases where such do cuments had been. proved already , it would not be ne way stab cessary . t a o bring down witnesses fur the purpose . Um own a great deal of the expense of trying actions under the existing system. There was anether clause, which provided that where a judge thought fit that parties should not be subjected to the expense of bringing their actions before the courts of law in Westminster, he should order such actions to be tried before the sheriffs in county courts with the assistance of juries,—thus materially diminishing the expense attendant upon such pro ceedings. This last provision, their lordships would perceive, was a most impoitant step towards the establishment of local and cheap jurisdictions throughout the country ; but if he thought that this provision of the bill at all anticipated or ren dered supererogatory that more effective and general arrange ment for the establishment of such local jurisdictions through out.the country which he (the Lord Chancellor) had brought forward in that house the session before last, and which he had formerly brought forward in the House of Commons,—if he thought, he repeated, that this provision in any way took the place of that measure, he should not have inserted it in the pre sent bill; but he considered, on the contrary, that this pro vision was quite consistent with that other and more general measure, and that it would supply some points that might be necessary to render that measure more effective. He would show that to be the case when he should have the honour of introducing that other bill, which he hoped he should be able in a few days to lay before their lordships. If he was not greatly deceive - LI, there could not be a more useful, as he was quite certain that there could not be a more necessary, measure than the one which tended to the establishment of local jurisdictions through out the country for the trial of all actions for a small amount, except some cases touching title, which should be left to the superior courts of law. One of the great and chief objects of legislation should be to render justice cheap and easy of access, and he considered the provision in the bill he now held in his hand as rather ancillary to the general measure to which he had alluded than as at all interfering . with its necessity. The bill was then read a first time, and ordered to be printed. —Adjourned. FRIDAY. _ _ _ .Petitions were presented by the Bishop of London _from Rushbrook, Suffolk ; the Duke of Richmond from lladdington shire ; the Earl of Albemarle from Stoney Strafford; the Earl of Roseberry from Dalkeith, praying for the abolition of Negro Slavery; Lord King from the householders of St. Mary-le- Strand, praying for a repeal of the Assessed Taxes; the Duke of Richmond from a place in Fife,. Lord Bexley from St. Marv, Newington; the Bishop of Worcester from Battersea; the Bishop of London from Hackney, a parish in Essex, and chapel. in. Bethnel Green; from ;all Saints' Poplar, and from several other places in Sussex, and one from Perth; Earl Grey from Walworth, and another place in Surrey; the Arch bishop of Dublin from the Archdeacon and Clergy of Dublin, praying for legislative interference against the violation of the Sab in bath: • The Earl of RoDEN, in presenting a petiton for the better observance of the Sabbath, took the Opportunity of alluding to the governMent scheine of education for Ireland. He said he had a petition to present' on that subject, but that he would delay offering it to the notice of the house until a most rev. prelate, (the Archbishop of Dublin,) who was then in town, should be present; he therefore took that opportunity of giving notice, that on Tuesday next he should bring forward that petition, when he hoped the most rev. prelate would be in his place. The subject of the petition, the noble lord observed, was one of extreme importance, and he trusted that the most rev. prelate would be enabled to give an explanation to the house and to the country of the effects which had resulted from the measure. It was a question of equal interest to the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the public were na turally most anxious to be informed whateffect the new system, which had now been a year in operation, had produced. Petitions were also presented by the Earl of Shrewibury, from various places iu Ireland praying for the abolition of Tithes, that the Irish coercise bill may not be passed, and in favour of vote by Ballot; and by The Bishop of London from St. Mary-at-Hill, and St. Andrews in the city, on the employ ment of Infant labour in Factories. When the House adjourned. THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. HOUSE OF COMMONS. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6th, Fivz o'CLocK. (Adjourned sitting.) Sir M. W. RIDLEY, brought up the report of the Committee on the Carnarvon Borough Election, Petition declaring that Sir Charles Paget was not, and that Mr. Manning ought to have been declared, duly elected. The SPEAKER informed the house that a petition had been presented from the agent of Mr. Jephson, who had petitioned against the return for the borough of Mallow, stating that the recognizances which had been entered into for prosecuting the petition, and had been transmitted to the Speaker, had been lost. After some conversation it was resolved that the petitioner should be allowed till Tuesday se'nnight to procure ctvidence to establish the facts alleged in the petition. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL brought in a bill to abolish fines and recoveries, which was read a first time. Mr. O'CoNN ELL gave notice of a motion for leave to bring in a bill to abolish fines and recoveries in Ireland. TAKING SEATS IN THE HOUSE. Mr. C. WYNN said, that after prayers yesterday, when the Speaker directed the serjeant to proceed to the committee-rooms to summon members to attend to the service of the house, at least one-third of the members present immediately left the house, thus making it apparent that they had attended prayers only for the purpose of taking seats. He thought that this was a practice which ought not to be allowed to continue, and he therefore moved "that no member should be allowed to keep a place who did not attend to the service of the house." Mr. WHizsioaa said, that if the practice of taking places were to continue in its present form, the business of the house could not be carried on. Many members were unable to obtain seats at all. Since Parliament met he had never been able to procure a seat until that night. (Hear.) That was a great grievance. He believed it was the practice for members to come down early and take seats, not only for themselves but their friends. It was, indeed, evident that there was not suffi cient room in the house to enable the public business to be transacted properly, and he hoped that some reform would take place upon this point. (Hear.) Mr. WARBURTON said, he was glad to hear the observations of the hon. member for Wolverhampton cheered by the house. It must be agreeable to the house to know that to-morrow the hon. member for Middlesex would submit a motion relative to the propriety of building a new House of Commons, when he hoped that all hon. members who felt an interest in the ques tion would be present at the discussion which might be expected to take place. Mr. BARING thought that no member should be allowed to take a vlace in the house, and moved an amendment to that effect. the present practice rendered the attendance of mem bers at prayers merely a hypocritical farce. Mr. HusiE said that if members were not allowed to take places in the present house, they would have no opportunity of addressing the house. Mr. O'CoNNELL said that matters were bad enough already, but the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex would make them worse. Lord ALTHORP also disapproved of the amendment. Sir R. INGus said he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the house to a subject connected with the prac tice of taking places. There had recently been a departure from the old practice of the house, by which the first opposi tion bench was reserved for such members as had formerly tilled high offices in the state. He had recently observed his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth, wh . o had formerly been a leader of that house, unable to find a seat on that bench. Now, although his right hon. friend had on one question given his support to the government, he apprehended that he was not therefore to be altogether deprived of the character of being in opposition. He did not wish to allude to particular individuals, but he would put it to young members whether it was fair that they should, by occupying the bench in question, drive from it members who 'had for many years taken an active part in that house? (Hear, hear.) Mr. COBBETT said it was impossible he could fail to perceive to whom the hon. baronet applied his observations. It was clear that the hon. baronet deemed him an intruder (" N'o"a— that he bad got into a situation where he had no right to be; but he could assure him that whenever he was attending in the house, and the front bench on either side was not entirely oc cupied, he would have a seat on one or the other of them. (Laughter.) He was at a loss to know what superior preten sions the right hon. baronet alluded to possessed compared with him. To be sure he had done much mischief. (Order.) The SPEAKER said he hoped that whatever seat the hon. gen tleman might choose to occupy in that house, he would at least conform to the rules and orders of the house, and not presume to state opinions with respect to any individual in either his public or private character, such as he was not warranted in stating. (Cheers.) Mr. COBBETT said he understood the hon. member for Ox ford to have pointed out the right hon. member for Tamworth as an individual who was entitled to a preference with respect to the occupation of a seat on that side of the house. He was going to observe, when he was interrupted, that he knew of nothing pre-eminently worthy in the right bon. baronet, which would justify the pretensions put forward as to his right to a particular seat. He was not inclined to cede that right to him; and, it' he were present, he would give him his reasons fully and plainly for thinking that he of all men in the house ought not to enjoy pre-eminence on that.or on any side of the house. Now, with respect to the inconvenience of which hon. members had complained, it all arose from the government being so saving and parsimonious—so sparing of the people's money. They be grudged the expense of providing a suitable building for the representatives .of the people; the house must therefore put up with the inconvenience, only praying to God to alter the hearts of the ministers, anti make them a little more squandering. (A laugh.) After some further conversation, Mr. Baring withdrew his amendment, and the motion was agreed to. BOROUGH OF LIVERPOOL. Mr. BENETT, in rising to bring under the notice of the house the corrupt state of the borough of Liverpool, said that it was not his intention to detain the house long, but he felt it neces sary to go into a short detail, in order to justify the motion with which he intended to conclude. The subject branched out into two divisions; first, the corruption and bribery which prevailed during the corporation elections, as well as during the elections for members of Parliament. It was well known that for many years past the elections for the mayorality had been marked by the grossest corruption. On various occasions vast sums of money had been expended in the contest. In one year the election cost £lO,OOO, and so late as the year 1827 it was said to have cost no less a sum than £15,000; and, should his motion for a committee of inquiry be granted, he should be able to prove that corruption had been practised in the mayoralty elec tions down to a very late period indeed. The prevalence of bribery in the corporation elections led to the introduction of the same system in elections for members to sit in that house, and the fact was, that these corrupt practices could be traced back to a very early date. But, not to go further back than the election in 1830, he would just state to the house what was the condition of the borough of Liverpool at that period. Dur ing that election scarcely a freeman went uncontaminated to the poll. Money was lavished in all quarters, the bribe varied from £5 to £lOO a man; and he had it in his possession that even a magistrate had allowed himself to be corrupted. He did not impute these acts of bribery to the hon. member who was returned at that election, but who was - afterwards on petition unseated. They were committed by some indiscreet friends of his; but they were not, on that account, the less illegal. He had seen the election books, containing the names of certain electors, with a sum of money placed against each ; and he would undertake to prove that upwards of 3,000 freemen had been corrupted at the time of that election, and that in some in stances where the parties had received money from both sides the bribe had been returned. That election was supposed to have cost £BO,OOO. The noble lord near him (Lord Sandon) had asserted that since that period bribery had not been prac tised at Liverpool. He believed, however, that the old corrup tion had not been laid aside even at the last election. He had not been himself to examine the evidence on this subject, but it had been laid before two eminent counsel, and one of them assured him that he never had a stronger case, and that he was perfectly satisfied he should have been able to unseat the sitting member. . The election was turned entirely by means of the old freemen. The noble lord's opponent was at the head of the poll on the first day of the election, but the freemen came up on the second day and turned the scale-1,113 of them voting for the noble lord, and 339 only for his opponent. He was assured, too, that the bribery oath was put to the freemen, but that it was invariably refused by the old freemen. He had already said that the Liverpool elections were always noted for corrup tion. In former times bribes consisted not so much of sums of money as of places and situations given to the electors voting in the interest of members who supported the government of the. day. It was a fact that this patronage was never given away by the members themselves, but was by them placed at the dis posal of a standing election committee, to be distributed among the electors for no other purpose than bribery. (Hear.) There used to exist in Liverpool a committee, composed of thirty gen tlemen, who subscribed large sums of money to return their favourite candidate. This committee was called the "Canning Cycle," and the whole patronage of government was placed in their hands, which they sold, and thus reimbursed themselves for all their expenses. This he called bribery, and bribery of the most dishonourable kind; and it was on account of such proceedings as this he called upon the house to grant a com mittee of inquiry. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord (Sandon) had asked why the gentlemen who prepared a petition against his return had withdrawn it from the consideration of that house? He would answer the noble lord's inquiry. He knew that that petition might have been prosecuted with effect, but he was unwilling to have this subject taken up from party or personal feelings. He told the promoters of that petition that his object was the disfranchisement of the freemen of Liver pool, not to attack the noble lord (Sandou) but the general system. Acting under his advice, and with those views, and not (as the noble lord said) from any fear of having their peti tion declared to be "frivolous and vexatious," these gentlemen gave up their opposition to the return of the noble lord. Their object was to reform the constituency—to disfranchise the cor rupt freemen, who were the tools of greater rogues in Liver pool. He hoped the noble lord would not think that term too harsh. (Laughter.) The noble lord declaimed about the in justice of any interference on the part of that house with - the franchise of the electors. The noble lord said that elective franchise was one of the rights of the freemen he (Mr. Benett) did not regard the franchise in that view. The legislature in conferring the elective franchise on a body of men did not give them any right, but imposed on them a duty ; which, if they did not perform conscientiously, the legislature would not con tinue to intrust to their execution. He was no advocate of an unlimited elective franchise, but he confessed he would rather have universal suffrage exist in any place than see the elective right confined to a body_ of men who made a traffic of their votes. (Hear, hear.) He thought. he had stated a sufficient case on which to ground his motion. He was not prejudiced in favour of the particular mode of inquiry he proposed, but would adopt any plan which the noble lord (Sandon) might suggest, if it would secure a full investigation of the subject. He could not anticipate that his motion would meet with oppo sition. Those who believed the truth of his statement would of course support it; and he thought it was ten times more incum bent on those who denied the existence of corruption in Liver pool to vote for an inquiry. The hon. member concluded by moving " that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the matters complained of in the petition of the inhabitants of Liverpool, presented on the 21st of February, and to report the result of their inquiries to the house." Mr. WAsoN seconded the motion. Lord SANDON complained of the unfairness of travelling back through a long series of years for the purpose of casting odium on the chara&er of the electors of Liverpool. He thought thatihe alle g ations of the hon. member fur Wiltshire ought, in fairness, to have been confined to the late election. The ground on which the petitioners prayed for an inquiry was their disappointment at finding that the change made by the Reform Bill had not had the effect of preventing the commission of corrupt acts at the Liverpool election ; and they implied that if the election had turned out satisfactory to them, they would not have called upon that house to investigate the case. He contended, therefore, that it was not fair in the hon. mover to travel out of the record and rake up every corrupt proceeding at former elections. With those elections he had nothing to do. Since 1830 two elections had passed unimpeached, and the third, which took place in the last year, in the regular way prescribed by the rules of that house. He did not think that the hon. member was warranted in imputing corrupt motives to those gentlemen who had formerly composed the committee of the candidates in the government interest.. He held in his haud a list of the gentlemen who formed the committee of Messrs. Brougham and Crcevey, some time agO candidates for the re presentation of that town, and he saw that several had put down their names for large sums, one for £5OO and another for 1:800. Would the hon. member charge them with expecting reim bursement ? and if he did not, what right had lie to impute corrupt motives to those gentlemen who supported a ministerial candidate? (Hear, hear.) It was not unfrequently the case that men engaged in political contests subscribed large sums of money to effect the return of their favourite candidate. For himself he could say, that he had been two years connected with Liverpool, and never had received, in that time, a single favour from government. (Hear.) That circumstance had not, however, made his friends less stanch iu the support of his cause. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord observed, that the expense of his first election was £l,BOO, that of his second be tween £1,400 and £1,500; and he should like to know how it was possible for him to have bribed any large number of con stituency, when he paid so small a sum of money? Was it fair, then, to disfranchise the older freemen on the allegations put forward by the hon. member? And upon whom else was the effect of his proposition, if it succeeded, likely to fall? It would not fall upon the rich, but upon the poor, although the rich had been more guilty of corruption than any other portion of the community. The whole number that would be disfran chised by the proceeding contemplated would be 1,448, while the number accused by the hon. member was 3,600; so that a very large majority of those whom the hon. member had pointed out as the most guilty would escape. But of these 1,448, many were clerks, book-keepers, and the younger sons of merchants, who were not on the rate-books, and others who were not resident in the town, and, therefore must be excluded from the accusation, leaving the punishment of disfranchisement to operate against a very small portion of really guilty per sons. The hon. member seemed to think that because all the householders voted one way, they were therefore guilty, and ought to be disfranchised. That certainly was a strange reason for disfranchising . them. Surely it was not the inten tion of the Reform Bill, in continuing the sight of the 41 btu gesses, to debar all those who had recently received 0 ' oc !:, tive franchise from voting as they chose. They were V be disfranchised because they all pleased to vote one waY4, argument of the hon. member amounted to this—tha t ever it was found that a constituent body voted all one w 8 1,6 ought to be disfranchised. The noble lord here re' ,. e:i the Grenville Act, by which the house had been reliei,,, t e 171' the duty of deciding on election petitions. The pre'r: - A' that act stated as the reason for adopting it, that the 1 0 ",tte; election petitions obstructed public business that it va se k -)? ed with immense expense; and that the decisions of W r eP; on those petitions did not give satisfaction, as they W o Oli A sufficiently solemn and accurate. To remedy these P o ts' complaint the Grenville Act was introduced. And / ptg the protection which that act threw over the seats e e lec'' bers ? First, the petition was referred to a dommittef4d; by means of ballot, and that tribunal was further pur',ol v , rendered still more impartial by striking off the narne,o4, those parties who were, or could be, in any way inter e the case ; in the next place, the members were swer n di:, justice; and the third protection was the power to c la d nesses, and to examine them on oath. Now, he We 0 11 which of all these provisions and protections did the ho o ;,j ber propose to extend the tribunal to which he wis s tbe V ot petition to be referred? A select committee, such as member had moved for, would not have the power to e i witnesses on oath. It was clear to him that none w'm fences which were thrown round the seats of member s Grenville Act would be advailable in this case. What w`),c, ~,f; the consequenee, he asked, of ripping up, before a s ec, mittee, all the censurable transactions that were au etied have taken place in the corporation of Liverpool for th e o d o years, many of which, he admitted, were very strong , ~0 1 1 0 4 believed, were well-founded? If it were possible to ,u p o. the tribunal proposed by the hon. member all the 944 connected with the present mode of deciding election 11, e riir the plan would not be objectionable; but what could e d,, vicious or insu ffi cient than a tribunal such as that prof i r e, the hon. member, which should have the power to inq u a lleb le into one single case of corruption, but into all that wer e 0 15 to have occurred for 20 or 30 years ? If the prale r , Ipetition was granted, they would have the bar of tho ook oaded with similar petitions. (Hear, from Mr. 0' C° ,bef!. He understood the cheer of the hon. and learned noi e 3 o 4 . Dublin, which he supposed meant, that the hon. an d 41P ' Id member would have no statute of limitations by which i° o ol, l , of corruption which had occurred in former times s° 5 exempted from inquiry. (Mr. O'Connel—No, none' r iori knew not to what time the hon. and learned mernb e a o wish to go back, in cases of supposed corruption, if 0 0; would not satisfy him. But this was not all that T i effected, if the prayer of the petition were agreed te' 0 1 4 they were called on to inquire into the - general historY corruption, which, it was alleged, had existed for a lost% of years in Liverpool. This was required for the mer e 'o rt il of prejudicing the minds of their judges against those v l b interested in cause previous to the matter beink e r before a committee. He had understood an hon. reer°"tlico Wason) to say, that he objected to the petition ree e ". 0 1 sented because the name of the mayor of Liverpool vi a ' r foot of it. tion' Mr. R. WASON said, he had not made that asset e lei had said that the brother of the mayor presided at the committee. ta' Lord SAN DON said, admitting that he had misundel l to y hon. member in the first instance, he must beg lea f oe! with reference to the brother of the mayor, that ther e o n, such name on his committee. As this allegation had 1 ) 01 1 0 fi be unfounded, he hoped that the hon. member would 11 ber A t ture be so confident in his statements. The hon. ariree,7,o Wiltshire had asserted that great numbers of the ol d t be would not take the bribery oath. Then, he would as'ite o #i member, how it was possible for them to have voted? o p o l elucidate the object for which the bribery oath was P ee t It was introduced merely to retard the poll. That Ateri however, defeated. A sufficient number of the o ld ce oce) come up, and did take the oath. Indeed, the only ill: b i e r ' knew in which it was refused was by a party on the 0 of i cs and his refusal was given amidst the acclamation s co f whom he came to support. It had been said that the o tion had improperly appropriated certain e xtensivc be their own purposes ; that was a misrepresentation. ;lot, tt - . . 9f the a ° 4,, alded to - weie la out or imroiement of t.. tei # report stated that id L3oo, f ooo the arising p from the dock e o o, l i been misapplied. That was impossible, for the moue), P tually laid out according to the provisions of an a ct T ot Co merit. On the present occasion it was desirable t o)/ false impression on this subject should be removed tb i, public mind; and that those who were to deal with . 0 0 , b e tion should not come to a decision with prejudiced n 1 tbC always believed that the corporation of Liverpool inau e l oPt, use of the public funds; and he did not think that theY t yli guilty of any malversation whatsoever. The works olr e f caused to be constructed were of the most splendid ( t. e t bef It would be almost more agreeable to his feelings t iel panelled those even that were the enemies of these Par fetct referred the different matters to them, because they to 0 : Ij# quainted with the subject, rather than submit then o e nal wholly unacquinted with it. One of the first the v ro' should be to direct the committee to inquire into toemit ings of the last election. They ought not to take rights of a considerable number of electors,_ not bec o 3 or efl; were more guilty than others, but because they were r ao cciric others. He did not approve of a tribunal of such . 0 19 i as that now called for, which was to examine allee t Vi l ll general a nature as those which the hon. member o,r oev i ii proposed. That hon. member had said that the 13 rf formed him that a very good case could be made out' c ot slll man were not in possession of all the facts and doctolls#o before the lawyer, so that he might satisfy his ovoi k el , / would perhaps find in the end, that the statement of to was not worth a penny. (Hear, hear.) The n obl*.lis)l observed, that now, having obtained a reformed e ti 4 l which was calculated to put an end to all such P ra iie house ought not to occupy itself with ripping up ol d g ro cfrii If there were any complaints to be urged as to they P,6 in the last election, that question ought to be trie grounds, and not to mix it up_ with antecedent 0 17th't which it had no connection. What was the opinion Y e i, William Shepherd on this subject ? In a letter 1 0 '0 ) 0 Y, lished on the subject that rev. gentleman confessed t_oefo self had been for many years mixed up in election 1 '4,104 that though, as those who knew him would easily v ii ef i el had never taken a bribe, he could not deny that oW e te''',/ he and others had subscribed for carrying on coot„01, tions had been applied, in many instances, for the ' a bi l 4) bribery to others; could he, then, be asked put 0 , 13 be tical face and prosecute others for Factices whien t i e ss,r had sanctioned ? He concurred with the rev. gel' a bo' he thought that it would be wise and prudent to let, #ll° ,jb° long . past, and so unlikely to recur, be again ma°`' oc, of discussion. se sP, Mr. BI N sox regretted that the time of the hoo ef tAaw taken up with this . question at a moment when thee ttli many much more important matters to engage its 11 ,0 0 b1 ef t there was a question of bribery charged against 0 0 4 ,4 fel',t nicipal officers, it might be a fit subject for investilv t lle committee on clrporations; but the inquiry as to t piPpe; question of bribery was different. If they sent. ,001a,' 0 question to a committee, were they to examine %to il e $ 4 2 oath ? He presumed not. If they were not, 114' t ti)e his experience in such matters, venture to say tho los e i , e not come to any satisfactory conclusion. But said O l d' mittee should affirm that bribery had existed, wo` l oe o 0 1)°, be ready to disfranchise that large number of fr e 'rio ll 01 1 ' examination at the bar? He believed that an} esetfcy membered what took place in the case of Ealbe great expense to which the public had been put -- s co°`` of the proceedings, and the unsatisfactory resolt , , Le diut"; r t , much disposed to have a repetition of such a protc4d be, these circumstances, and thinking that no cas e " a t Y r out to show the expediency of such an inquiry be t should feel it his duty to oppose the motion. 0. inell j p e Mr. WssoN said that the argument of the "001 Wip Worcester, if good for anything, would hold „ e ver b o j an inquiry in any case of alleged corruption t _P,,,, r tan!, o l namely, that the house bad other and more 'Lig f a ir . 7 re , to occupy its attention. That, however, was the case made out by the hon. member was not an election petition ; it was not an a o org e rg I, the return of the noble lord (Sandon ;) it was ao t op bribery, which had been practised for Ye ar . i s ; but . 0 % - clis, election of the chief magistrates of that t00 ... 4 iu a do election of members to serve for the borook.f l l ; ce n o # o o To him it appeared that a su ffi cient case ha wo tti u ca jo warrant an inquiry by a committee up sta:vieep a dd forauegatv 0,; impossible to read. the evidence which b it waS• subject, and allow the matter to rest where a llega t . i f punish the guilty ; and if false, to defentr e to hiin th t h trueM L or O' f C al o s N e, N t E h L e L i t n h q o e u i g ry ht, o t u h g a h t w t :3”ebtheerse:riiid va.citettro.—oittoole were unjustly accused. The case appea , n i g t r w o s a s s e simt onlth w a d as lje rr ;lo v e t .f r tie r :Cf riY . deed, even those who denied the necessity_ gros, 11 /0 bribery ible andp aeses r u v e p r t not attempted to deny the .existei.ince of tile the bribe r ' ,l,rovt Let that corruption be punished. w b beo to „ ge l/ deo- c o of Waitati° ll 1 P There was no • tatUto bribed.o ver thosTe The refusal badb of e f the oinstqguuirifty",ounldd - - - ew , e, and if such a statute could exist, it could p e utis case, where the crime had continued air til:a4eat time. Let it be understood that iu supp, bietlifer inquiry no imputation was meant to be ( (andon ) it was cast on those electors guilty • ' ! orkosi • rlirueptiimonplzsiethhaergheodu,sealti,d) Nsd.uhejrues.tiitrsTexiiir ,suerated by so many circumstances. It the p 4;tiserl felt that they were innocent, they would I O i li rY• It was no proof of their innocence tha ils of evading it. 4 0 °I : 4 W. LENNOX denied that his noble fries 41,14 t) intended to throw a shield over bribery in t oilti ° t ll . lie regretted extremely that the bony t, rw Y of Wilts had felt it to be his duty to has e l ion Ward this question. He thought the valual :::ill,,,n'e could be better employed than by rakini -teselsoofflb3Ooth. t h i e ' es itthtionuggmhte t m h b e er funds of the co! il_esrsdiposed of than by paying . the expense; , i : e,, arify occur in this investigation. During 1 3 "Ils Uo imputation of corruption had been n during the las C't rauderate ; they were open to the inspectio: tila rs r , and of course had there been the slightest Ito ge of bribery, the same spirit that had pro * hi t bd not have been wanting to have promoted a 4::hicir_cl...llo,Reraphiobseecre.otdhi e icit m uhse o i t o . a io nrg n , , because • he felt it wa tar lush to punish the innocent for the guittY.; w a o , bisect 64 persons who had never offended right add : tp ht ao: til l i e 1 : 1 1 ) : es thatof t i ll s . e 3 o R : i , e r i l e f oehrmmi whene d na ß e to i hs o l mt ie l fh r eheav would d t f. is oo i rv ur . w ee l o pd r ir o fp u r oo ri n k tc ? tey e d r a eo s n_r l o t well e et . i hallorneryshire in the last session, "that the I would o trailleil'llB4tsfil'ltt'3gheintheaelllectors." The effect had been pre fa t °r ee of example, and he felt assured that it quel:.k.ir the cause of freedom of election to pu Ithi Leform Bill, so many hon. members had I se . s c ; had been most openly and unblushing y b t Apd 1 ji• WILLoUGHBY could not concur with qat::4l•aed member for Dublin, that, the 11 : h oet o s te g ies i v d o ' l is c l ?t a lloo l dt ri en , aid a alli select set e rn l i e lbt chuuteit tribunals. y c a o bi m sa,s m i ssiietifee The motion hist mwc committee I s t irowni_tintwp.eeroeonotuu:poltt would WhFllt, and in practice dangerous kb th e d . IS the case ? One class of electors p la r s a s y b , y w , la 'strand ' . tby fill of another c . It ' a bill 'seinen l' • which in eftec k a ,, ! of pains and penalties ti h ito ° 4ll l l 4 .7: ll,a l r Y ee ri a ye f lee politicalur oins sapuocwhevra generalto theoabnj class objection t one fi o ni f , it t e ei l i e rn e ulleteki4tboadd.tfimes disfranchise to a system of proscriptio_ cp :, it 1t3:4 .111 a, 4: os: t, , , , t.oay;il :a 0 pfutirs minesi vi r vri a n elee,orgp c fse n oi sro i t, s ohi e ofi san t t h hneh e edpoe o tnal t hers h atce e ytt. r oa , ist a sw. n oa d fir r. thel this hclil.. that 9ste sde t enm h oao r pt ; u aarbie , Tel i . 10 5 i,. 1 ,ell Pasiotis are too apt to . run rahe-'ll excited 0 etiuon is sign 7500 ~,, • ne p etit . lehillselia-ut; another pon signe . d by ;h. pro din g be fatal to the quiet of , th er , Ks must . as stated 1 khl e e nave been corporate abuses, oration f Itiei4l44ereber for Ipswich, there is a corp The ver that may enter on such inquiry. g' th, 'of the pres tion is clearly allegvi m ire el ect . remembers , % "as of to serve .in parliame taus,eectors whom it is sought to disfranchise 1 high, e i 3 ar t: ti vehs the labourer; and hard working men .; 1 , 14 0' 01 , who gain their political rights byal gliba ,ho as ancient as it is constitutional ,7 0 5 t,,,! lab h ouseholders clause of the reform t.n.. t 0 1 v ia cie t t ;i l to:a:at seutihbxeilineobt l o eti b s i ti . e ( L c rt l oo i a o da n rel e s cio — lortgi t hvnrieilattc on below ofi pnh a ogep c u e ppi r oeat a riu t trijog i nri i_ . roc tt4ltt N iev iee p , , .. ,,rtittti, 4 te.ba. I . i 4t, so it inpvieretarel I ,se, ) : o lst O eh l ei would '1! ati l tf :to ti oi it 1 Is e 4 e ; aeottiee l: e, a eta r troasrsoafo sought t ioh e di constitution so,ctseoinir,be ne cinducement iosfbreia. thisnn nc t town.h hohl a ui t eusdedutoc e).w illm se_ teri ;( ,:- I ' . 4 : lciet ; ,. issues,:br,::(l. tats es: t ona l i rle, , onto w rhtbt h eioza o rnb. a l r oc e fAm nAatr the s eeree o wt h t eo, e vel n ete hcy p tetil o .conv u t iepntmoudbsroahsdtoout attack households ) 1 na:i Can exercise an denied , ;1.;I: tpt:g raesasti gran: t a ss r ti t s .o l ufo i . u o t efr : c o t h a t b orh n eu e i n s : so o e : r t t p_ h b e_ d e n t o ' e v ff in e . e k e l t n B3o u o a w l:? o ß n l e t ; 1 : 4: 4 . 1 11 : e d, P f et o :t i 1 104 ) : 1 : 51 4-1 :: l u ri I : 11- ''. B l : e i s i °1:1 ; l'e et ' e: th o he r roreearaulteilksOcYtect admitted ) e ic t cll interested g ts t h ei e or t a en he t v we r s i dt h hh t c r ha : li cv et nil , dhes t a a te o n ttiri s i o ho h est d k e e wcen s t p lh : h eao lo oe e r a r t f s ei c cn il q e i a i xto e t cf s r ot i t aiu hn i ~,k -ar the b ,* • . 11 rt i:t ik: has l I I ,oteLue e,,ti Ithytel, d .ytertzt 1. ot 40011 ,11. underie, ,i e:t.ske,ohof . .. 7,,1 netboeuiteepeeou It trnr sfr n sn Itootuihsr estpoe t meet r ueepa u aetrpts e nhoit t ial iesiraeovaii. are ,ceelu:oey c anirus h undsaas a ttlteyee r intdc g trtouleo. e helst ineid a tgsore g htendbi a Ltmy i ud n . eeoi s reft t ehpt t eihi h yur sea:. llis wthr . elector :imrcseti.i exercise coursealted tout' -% re o 1 4 ‘ , se h. rt to a committee under d the infereuce 144 ho not been fordfollowe, an . iltleeleeertB4ll:iblae:sli?Llt i r l s s o a f r e a judicial the . oin nature h s of the p ;14414°14e to make up the lac e as it is unc 'lt th e 4 Ilew tribunal, as dangerous tiLhkiitocg°eltthtle ie r t , ql 4°,11. friend, a - m he co nstitution of its ordinary com_ 1 v.,4 th at „, will _ Ittallip 'all be done e b t y h e law of o d a p i s c a the Grenvi i tt i tld reliance onwhosequestion, t n i o o u n r , f a o n r d o i r n a te g g a r l i n ty he titt i t h i. 4 414 o ijgea n: si 1 1 1 r h Y. e l'h committee eord Lit or Ptecedents. Attendiaubn: lit e who 11 %La Y ln g m y in to decide. lotta bribery andsac t the ear nothing may come :1,414:111',11 elranootlisosna titllll4,Piiri on weaknessround of principle, t.be m e e t ' t, qe,Qrs should be lb, 1 , and the of the case or its m tt,ll, 4t . 4tto g side itls e ta,higo: ae mtenji gossip—heron ufnm o se te t botafe b ncr e andfnao s focar w oso.in‘ o ruvt r n wlhcdio.hl , nt not c a coh(:l n t:urr d wcsae: o"n n il ttlin o od,ti htee e ef_c s j:. question existing amon ts , 7! 't . t As the • not what were ckytt, t , e real question, and . . its :At,,'),f particular p it ase were I f a & J . *the hou, th '4;41(1 inquiry, was the duty of ~, e cit i t ti ts W l i , prevent such practices iii future. u y i os d rern t o h tp a tf t ioo t r h n e ionuslry jI e 41 1 .(itid the. circumstances statedufficient to war (ftr e4 4 !h a were in his opinioi s to a select cot it iv a : l ll 4 ,the matter for inquiry 11.11:tilziti tshstellionceaneadsideaatse ;infonLe prosecuting woe • I_ ,ate election that I : is aildmissiondeftlee lienN.'l;•„n,Y,'"Y the enormous expense whichoss pia i f nrr t h h t he i sepk mantisa i r n t di thee,s ! 1 h tt uo r t ew h a. e aSse ll ,ll o ( :40 : k : rt. : : t e, Pd: I he44t i e ll : , : t i t'l 11 14 t ti l a co t It.' ee r°i::: tii g l Ini:::ot object b b": t dei l l i : ec rei a S l : tde e l l e s P oi N eo ld oi n : llu l af r e oe ro l s ci t f t d t fh eren br_ rdr. ai lo r b re e n di il eta e nbr rvhdc_e eg eeh h a: s r : I t ev l s r‘?. .. -i l o er g o one s ma x:, at‘ e vl i ' .ltt motion. h d o t he h4 ny e o 0 otvtotr the a at g i. sr:ss. for 0, Ittriiunai Dil with rlii P t,youhos t rei i I eeh hßht the itt4o:l:,he: of the corasreulactnd She du 440411;`)te" he the noble lord . (Sanekint) was in ' " kik -I 't why the inqu' y should take place. , . , r ,i ccia."'aciiix WeorrEsat. pay was that of the it lookedt 411 4; LM E s atd that that was impossible—h( Wl )4 , .as the noble lord concerned, for he btitt:lord knew, but it :as: of kuciivn that tin 1 .4„N and agents acting and it was to the e? to I'm elections and 4 „ . o t cm. o pro: thr,'llcurred he alluded, ' when he said it 'was' ti ‘ : co upped be. covered by E 1,400. x e v r a s s t of: what h t oat other. : he sa : v i b t dt a h i in : s a etg t — t a h s t : h e he vd e c Nall„,lele amnesty of 141.1 " Ilt. : l i ttid‘'hIlret I PS f si3aurn° a Nhi n D' y s° c sa mentioned,e s (l e lat as WkihiCik.alue:dtidabt:albe'o'atneehf(nsl i f ead bmPealleilineenil:je e ilcin-glupo o llis u igrn t ity:lh i e n at hatutht f eta u hhot t e u farhe r dhi l l' n 14 1 , 4 to go into it. kisth,,ll. GLADSTONE said, I cannot wonder at tl bighir,oon. members have declared their intentioi al tr, hoe I perceive the false impressions they id' Ole existence of bribery at the late election o • il. friend, the member for Middlesex, 11 . E a nc.ryoiedl t l o cc b n hao e e enma c nm :o o y m tti i . httttb—tt committees eeea: end . eiemntetanhs,:oar",