The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-07 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. J. FINLAY, in reference to the late election
for sheriffs, said that notwithstanding the order to
the contrary persons who were not liverymen were
allowed to be upon the hustings, and one gentleman,
who stood in that position, appeared to have been
made a liveryman upon the spot for the express pur-
pose of his being proposed as one of the candidates.
(Hear, hear.) He considered that this was a most
improper proceeding, and that no man Should be
made a liveryman at a moment's notice for political
purposes. Upon the occasion of a common hall
being held all the City offices were closed, and no
business could be transacted; but Mr. Sewell, one
of the Corporation officers, had taken upon himself
to make a gentleman a liveryman of one of the com-
panies for the purpose he had mentioned. He con-
sidered that the subject was one that ought to be
inquired into, and he moved that the question be
referred to the Law and Parliamentary Committee
for them to consider and report.
Mr. BENGOUGH seconded the motion.

Mr. BENNETT said that, as he was the person re-
ferred to, he thought it right to explain that he had
done nothing more than had been done by other
gentlemen on many similar occasions. He applied
to Mr. Sewell, and was told that it was a customary
proceeding, and one that was perfectly in accord-
ance with ordinary practice. With regard to the
election, be said that on his part it had been con-
ducted in a perfectly honourable and straightfor-
ward manner ; and, although defeated, he was
certainly not"dishonoured, (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MEDWIN said he believed it was pretty well
known by what means Mr. Bennett had been de-
feated. (Hear, hear.) He considered that the pro-
ceedings which had taken place were most disgrace-
ful, and he should move the committee be instruct-
ed to inquire how certain votes might have been
purchased, and the names of the parties who acted
as the agents in those transactions. He considered
that the character of the Corporation was at stake,
and that for their own sakes an inquiry such as he
suggested ought to be entered into. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENNETT said that so far as he was con-
cerned what he should say was, " Peace, peace, and
let bygones be bygones."
Mr. RICHARDSON said he should support .he pro-
position of Mr. Medwin, and he hoped that the effect
would be to break down the system of excluding the
public from the hall, and that they would not, as on
the last occasion, see only a few half-starved look-
ing men in front of the hustings. (Laughter.) Mr.
Bennett certainly, although defeated, was not dis-
graced, for he was at the head of the poll until the
fourth day, when the money was forthcoming.
(Hear.) The Corporation was constantly talking
about its rights and privileges, but such proceedings
as those that took place at this election were calcu-
lated to destroy all confidence in them, and no inde-
pendent man would ever have a chance of being
elected to the office of sheriff unless he had a long
purse. (Hear, hear.) He believed that at the last
election 200 votes were paid for. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. STEWART said that although in his opinion it
was most unadvisable to have brought the subject
forward, he could not help saying that it was most
improper for any of the Corporation officers to create
liverymen in this manner. With regard to the
terms of the motion of Mr. Finlay, it appeared to
him they were not the proper ones to be used. The
question was not what might have been paid for
votes, but what was actually paid. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LAWLEY said it appeared to him that if the
motion was carried it would have no effect. The
charge of corruption only applied to a particular
section of the Livery, and if they had sold their
votes they were liable to punishment, and it was not
likely that they would convict themselves, and the
committee would have no power to compel them to
give information. (Hear, hear.) If the Livery
was corrupt, their privilege to vote ought to be
taken away, but he did not think that this Court
was called upon to interfere in the way suggested.
Deputy DE JERSEY took the same view of the
subject, and reminded the Court that, with regard
to the first portion of the question, which alleged
that Mr. Bennett had been improperly made a
liveryman, this had nothing to do with his eligibility
for the office of sheriff, as he was equally eligible
without being in that position. (Hear, hear.) He
did not think that the Court was justified, as it was
called upon to do, in assuming that votes had been
purchased, without any evidence of the fact ; and,
as it was clear the committee could do nothing if
the matter was referred to them, he suggested the
propriety of the motion being withdrawn.

Mr. TINLAY said he felt it his duty to bring the
subject before the Court, but after what had taken
place he should withdraw his motion, and the same
course was taken by Mr. MEDWIN.