The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-29 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JULY 29, 1833.

SECOND EDITION.

S UN-OFFICE, Seven o'Clocd•.

'We are enabled to publish the REPORT of
the Special Committee on the LIVERPOOL
ELECTION case, presented this evening at five
o'clock. The reformed House of Commons is
faithfully discharging its duty by their uncom-
promising denunciations of political corruption,
and their determination to extirpate the rotten
parts of the elective franchise. The Liverpool
report, like the Warwick, enters the marrow of
the freemen, and stigmatizes the Corporation as
a close municipal body deserves in these times :

The Select Committee appointed " to pursue the inqui-
ries commenced by the Committee appointed 6th March
last, into the matters complained of in the petition of the
electors and inhabitants of Liverpool," presented 20th Fe-
bruary list, containing allegations of long prevalent gross
bribery—treating and other corruption at elections for
Chief Magistrates and Members to serve in Parliament for
the said borough, and praying the disfranchisement of the
burgesses of the said borough, and to whom petitions
presented respecting the said borough were on the Bth
July last referred,
Have, pursuant to the order of the House, heard evidence
and witnesses examined, as, well by counsel on behalf of
the said petitioners, the electors, and other inhabitants of
Liverpool, as by counsel for the mayor, aldermen, bailiffs,
and common council of the town of Liverpool, on behalf
of the burgesses of the said town (whose petition, presented
on the 12th of March last to your Honourable House,
was referred to your Committee) and have also considered
the matters to them referred, and do agree upon the
following report :

That bribery and corruptio❑ have existed in the elec-
tions of Members of Parliament, and chief magistrates for
the borough of Liverpool, and in some cases to an enor-
mous amount.

That your Committee have confined their inquiries to
the corrupt practices existing in the elections of Chief
Magistrates and Members of Parliament, since the year
1823 inclusive.

And your Committee have not instituted any further
inquiry into bribery and corruption alleged to have been
practised at the election of 1832, such inquiry having
been the immediate object of the former Committee, and
having been already reported upon by such Committee to
your Hon. House.
That between the years 1823 and 1826, both inclusive,
and in the year 1828, the elections do not seem to have
been keenly contested, and that there is no evidence of
particular bribery or treating having bee❑ resorted to.
That at the contested election for Mayor in 1827, the
price of votes began at the sum of 6s. each and rose to
201. ; and at the contested election for a Alember for the
representation of the borough in 1830, the price began at
21. and rose to 601., and in one instance to 801.

That at this contest in 1827, for Mayor, the election
cost each candidate or his friends seven or eight thousand
pounds ; and that at this contest in 1830, for a represen-
tation, the election cost each candidate or his friends up-
wards of 40,0001.
That from documents and evidence on the minutes of
this Committee, it appears that 2,661 individual freemen
of the borough at this election were systematically bribed,
and that no evidence has been tendered before this Com-
mittee to refute this imputed bribery.
That of the 2,661 freemen thus bribed in 1830-1,880
of the same persons still remain on the register entitled to
vote; and that your Committee deem it proper to report
to your House that the burgesses or old freemen are the
only persons entitled to vote at the annual elections of
chief magistrate and bailiffs for the borough.
That it has been proved that at two different periods
before 1823 two offices in the Customs were bargained
for and sold, and that the proceeds of these sales, as they
arose, were separately handed over to the Committee for
the time being of one of the candidates for the representa-
tion of Liverpool, under the name of " A subscription to-
wards defraying the expenses of the contested election" on
the part of the said candidate.

'lbat at present many houses in Liverpool, assessed at
the bona fide value of 101., and under 12/., are com..
pounded for, the rates for such houses being now paid by
the landlord. Yet there still remain on the register en-
titled to vote 7,656 householders, which number is con-
stantly increasing.
That the corporation of Liverpool, conducting the de-
fence on behalf of the freemen in this inquiry, are governed
by a council of forty-one members, who are self-elected, and
disburse a revenue of 98,000/. per annum, the accounts
of which are annually published and circulated ; and the
members of this council are alone eligible to the office of
chief magistrate and bailiffs.
That the bribery and corruption, both at elections of
chief magistrates and members of Parliament were presented
by the grand jury in the open court, in 1827, as a nuisance.
That it appears from the Journals of the House that
on the 4th of February, 1828, a petition from the mayor,
bailiffs, and burgesses, of Liverpool, was presented to the
House, and a Bill was accordingly brought i❑ and read a
first time o❑ the 12th of February of that year," for pro-
viding a more convenient place, and making certain regu-
lations for the elections of Members to serve i❑ Parliament
for the borough of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster,
and also of a mayor and bailiffs for the said borough for
fixing a certain period within which persons admitted to
the freedom of the borough shall be entitled to vote, and
for preventing frauds in the personation of voters," and the
same was read the first time and ordered to be read a
second time.

And that no further proceedings have since take❑ place.
That your Committee find that in 1831, March 28, a
Committee of the House appointed to try the merits of the
petition, reported that gross bribery and treating prevailed
during the late election for a burgess to serve in Parliament
for the borough of Liverpool.
That in 1831, March 29, the House suspended the writ
nem. con.

That i❑ 1831, April 16, the House further suspended
the writ.

That in 1831, April 22, Parliament was dissolved.
That in 1831, May 3, in a new election for Liverpool,
Mr. Ewart and Mr. Denison were returned.

That in 1831, June 24, Mr. Benett gave notice that he
would, o❑ the 29th of June, move resolutions on the state
of the representation of the borough of Liverpool.
That in 1831, July 6, Mr. Denison, having been elected
to serve for Nottinghamshire, moved a new writ for the
borough of Liverpool, when the illi!quis of Chandos
moved the adjournment of the debate until the next day,
which was agreed to 11011. con.
That in 1831, July 8, Mr. Denison again moved for
a new writ for Liverpool, and the Marquis of Chandra
moved the adjournment of the debate until the House had
disposed of Mr. Benett's motion, and that the House
divided—For the issuing of the writ 99—Against, 117.
That in 1831, September 5, Mr. Vernon moved for a
new writ for Liverpool, when Mr. Benett proposed as
amendment, that the House do agree in the report made
on the 26th March last, " That gross bribery and treat-
ing prevailed during the late election at Liverpool, (viz.)
1830." The House divided—For issuing the writ, 35
—Against, 76—when it was resolved, That such bribery
and treating require the most serious consideration of the
House.

Ordered.--That leave be given ta bring in a Bill to
prevent such bribery and treating.
That in 1831, September 19, a Bill ftr disfranchising
the freemen was read a first time, and ordered to be read
a second time.

That in 1831, October 12, the Bill was read a second
time.

That Mr. G. Vernon moved a new writ for Liverpool,
—For issuing the writ 93, against it 67.
That in 1831, November, there was a new election.
That in 1832, January 27, leave was given to bring in
a Bill to prevent bribery and treating at Liverpool.
That in 1832, January 31, the Bill was presented and
read a first time.

That in 1832, May 23, the Bill was read a second
time—Ayes 44, Noes 10.
That in 1832, May 24, witnesses were ordered to at-
tend the Committee [1832, June 27]—Resolved that the
House will resolve itself into the Committee, 1832, July
4th—Resolution tead.—Ordered, that it he an instruction
to the Committee that they have power to examine wit-
ness:B in support of the Bill.

That during the period comprised between March 28,
1831, and the month of July, 1832, two elections for
Members for the Borough took pl tee.

That in the elections subsequent to )530, the eusperaion

of 'the writ, and the proposed Bill for the r' .
meat appear to have had a beneficial effect in restraining
the practice of bribery and corruption.
That the elections of chief magistrate frequently con-
tinue several days ; and, according to the custom of the
borough, when St. Luke's Day falls on a Sunday, the
election for Mayor commences on the morning of that day,
and have been known to continue until 12 at night.
Your Committee, therefore, having duly weighed and
considered the evidence laid before them in support of the
petition, as well that on the part of the defence, feel them-
selves in duty called upon to recommend your Honourable
House to introduce a Bill to restrict the franchises, and
to alter the whole system of elections in that borough, as
well for Members to sit in Parliament as for the municipal
officers ; and that you will adopt such measures as under
the circumstances may appear to your Honourable House
best suited to obtain the desired purity of elections.

. .
Your Committee cannot conclude this report without
directing the attention of your Honourable House to the
conduct of freemen, in a better class of life and in good
circumstances, who have shown fully as much readiness to
take bribes as the poorest and most destitute of their fellow-
burgesses.

OWE RIA L PAIENi

THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the Chair a quarter to five o'clock.
Mr. Preston presented pavers from the India House.

CARRiCKERGUS.

O❑ the motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, the second reading
of the Bill disfranchising the above borough was postponed
till this day three months. Issuing writ suspended for
fourteen days after the meeting of the next session of Parlia-
ment.