The Sun.
London, England, 1834-02-27 00:00:00

WARWICK DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

Sir R. FERGUSON moved the second reading
of the Warwick Disfranchisement Bill. Regarding
the petition which had been presented by the noble lord
from the inhabitants of the town of Leamington, he had
to hope that the petitioners were more sincere now than
they were last year. He understood that they re-
pented having presented the petition to the house
during the last session.—(Hear, hear.) There was
a great difference of opinion amongst the petitioners,
subsequently to their having attached their signatures to
it. The bon. gentleman proceeded to make some re-
marks, which we could not hear, when
The SPEAKER put the question that the Warwick
Disfranchisement Bill be read a second time.

Sir JOHN HANMER said, that be had made himself
acquainted with the reports of both committees, and he
thoaght there never could be a more dangerous
base, on which to proceed to ground an act of par-
liament, than the suppositions which were contained
in those two reports respecting the borough of Warwick.
He would not say some acts of bribery bad not been com-
mitted ; there was no man in the house that detested
bribery more than he did, hut he considered the opinions
expressed in those reports unsupported, as the evidence did
not warrant the conclusions. The hon. member did not
come forward after having been defeated in 11521, until
after a requisition signed by upwards of 700 most teepee-
' table inhabitants had been presented to him. The amount
of bribery actually proved, was in twenty-one votes,
and the moiety of those were proved to have been given
on the other side. He could not, then, but be
surprised that the committee should have arrived at the
conclusion which they did, that there was gross bribery at
the Warwick election, and that his hon. friend had been
returned by that bribery, he having had a majority of
149 votes, and only a moiety of the 21 bribed votes having
been given in his favour. It seemed to him to be incre-
dible that the committee should have arrived at this con-
clusion upon so sandy a foundation as that on which they
had to proceed. He should have expected, that over-
powering proof of corruption and bribery would have been
brought forward. No such thing had taken place, and how
the committee could have come to the conclusion at which
they had arrived he was really at a loss to comprehend.
He would say that there was no foundatio❑ for the allega.
tions contained in the bill introduced by the hon. member.
He did not purpose to go through all the charges con-
tained in the report ; he was content to let the case rest
upon its own merits. With respect to treating,
he admitted that, to a certain degree it existed be-
fore the test of the writ, but it appeared to hint that there
was very great unfairness in that part of the report which
related to treating, as it gave one to understand that illegal
treating existed after the writ. Now this was not proved
in the evidence. If they could get rid of the practice
of treating altogether, he should be glad of it, but whilst it
existed, it must depend upon the private endeavours of
candidates to remedy it. There was a grave and heavy
charge that the tenants and adherents of the Gre-
ville family had been introduced into Warwick in
order to sway the electors, but it should be recollected
that in 1831 greater riots had been created by the intro•
duction of the Birmingham Political Union into the
town, who took possession of the hustings, and treated
•ery roughly one of the candidates. Some allowance should
therefore be made for those who wished to have their friends
about them to protect them, but he did not think that to
prevent a recurrence of such riots, they ought to take
away the elective franchise. For these reasons, therefore,
he was determined to oppose the introduction of the pre-
sent bill.

An HoN. MEMBER, whose name we could not
learn, said that he agreed with the hon. gentleman who
had just sat down, that it ought to be clearly and dis-
tinctly proved bribery had been committed before any
measure was taken for the purpose of taking away the
elective franchise.—(Hear.) It was not so very material
to show the number of cases in which bribery had been
committed, as it was to show the mode in which that
bribery had been conducted. If the bribery had been con
ducted on a systematic plan—if there was proof brought
before the house that a committee directly connected with the
candidate, were the very persons by whom the bribery
was conducted—in cases of that sort, it was the duty of
the house to interfere, and it was to be supposed that
many cases did happen of that sort, that could not im-
mediately be Lrought under the consideration of the
house. He contended that that was the precise case
with regard to Warwick. It bad been proved that the
principal acting party in the present instance was the
agent of the brother of the candidate, which showed that
there had been a regular system of bribery going on, end
therefore the better way would be to disfranchise the bo-
rough altogether.

Sir J. HANMER said a few words in explanation,
but in consequence of the loud cries of " Spoke," his ob-
servationi were inaudible.

Mr. HALCO3IB begged to call the attention of the
house to the very important principle that now,
for the first time, they were called upon to carry
into effect. He, for one, believed that that great and im-
portant measure of reform was to he something like a final
settlement, but still it was the duty of the house, if neces-
sary, to take the elective franchise from any borough,which,
from its corrupt practices, might be undeserving of it. Ad-
mitting that bribery and corruption ought not to prevail, it
became the duty of that house to look at other cases as well
as the present one, and to compare the borough of War-
wick with other boroughs. It appeared by the report
that bribery had prevailed at the elections in that borough.
The evidence established that there was bribery. The
whole sum spent in the bribery, as proved, amounted
to 701. 3i. 6d. Of the 21 voters, 10 only were
proved guilty of bribery for the honourable mem-
ber whose election had been declared to be pro-
cured by bribery and corruption. He would not state
particularly the characters of the parties bribed. In the
second report the committee had given a statement of
those voters, and they amounted to little more than
paupers. One of the parties bribed was rated at Is. sd. ;
another at Si. ; another at 11, ; another at 1/. ss. ;

another at 9.1. 10*. ; another at 11. ss. ; and one only a t
51. ; with the exception of one, who was alleged to be
bribed, being an elector, and rated at 331., but
with respect to whom, the bribe was of this nature—
he was leaving his farm, on which he left a quantity of
straw, which the agent of the candidate was allowed to
value, and who awarded 91. 10s. to him as the bona fide
value of that which he had left on the premises. If
that was to be considered bribery, be really should
not, on any occasion, be induced to argue a case of bribery
again in that house. The bribed voters, therefore, were
all under 4/., except the one be had last alluded to, and
the two classes were quite distinct. The nature
of the evidence also, and its contradiction was very peculiar,
but rather than detain the house, he felt, on the part of
the voters for Warwick, he could freely afford and admit
that the house should take for granted that the whole
20 who were bribed,were rated at the small sums mentioned.
The house would remember that this was not the case of
a close run contest, where wholesale bribery was com-
mitted ; they ought to look at the state of the poll, and to
bear in mind that Sir C. Greville had refused
to become a candidate, unless he had a requisi-
tion, signed by a majority of the voters, and
that that gallant member received a requisition signed
by upwards of 600 voters who pledged him their sup-
port, the whole amount of the voters being only
1,300. He (Mr. Halcomb) could state from his own
personal knowledge that that gallant officer was more
respected and beloved in the borough than any other
man who had ever been in that borough. That hon.
bironet had been beaten when the cry for reform
prevailed, and when his Majesty made that consti-
tutional appeal to the people to return members favour-
able to the measure, which be (Mr. Halcomb) did not
find fault with. Sir Charles being opposed to that mea-
sure, had not been returned. He was told that but
for that question he would have been returned is pre-
ference to any other candidate, and they declared they
would have him hereafter. By whom was he opposed ?
It was useful to know the horses and the colours of the
riders, before entering into an investigation of that
nature. The first witness examined before the com-
mittee, was Mr. Thomas Collins,the mayor of the borough,
and Mr. William Collins. The petitioner was his son,
and had been married to the daughter of the rival candi-
date, and it was in this way that the reform candidate had
endeavoured to keep the borough to himself. The house
would see from this statement what bad been the libe-
rality of the reform patron of the borough. What was the
slate of the poll at the elm of the contest ? Sir
Charles Grenville was 701, and Mr. King, the beaten
candidate was 552, and yet the committee had come to
the resolution that the election of Sir Charles Greville
was attributed to bribery, although they exonerated Sir
Charles from any guilty knowledge of the bribery.
The hon. and learned member continued to urge that the
election of Sir Chat lea Greville could not be attributable
to bribery, and stated that if a system of bribery in
the corporation could be proved to exist, he would be one
of the last men i❑ that house to stand up against the bill.
The hon. and learned member proceeded to read some
documents which were submitted to the committee ap
pointed to ascertain the validity of the Warwick election.
No general system of corruption was discovered to have
prevailed, though some individual cases might have occurred.
It was true that open houses were kept, but nothing
was advanced to warrant the disfranchisement of
the borough of Warwick.—(Great cries of " Question,
question.") In his (Mr. H.'s) mind, the neighbouring
borough of Coventry deserved to be disfranchised as
well as Warwick. He called the attention of the
bailee to the danger of depending upon evidence not taken
upon oath. He would mention a case connected with
the Hertford election—(oh, oh, oh)—one of the
witnesses had been found guilty of perjury.—(011, oh !)
What would be the case if the house had acted upon this
man's evidence ? He concluded by apologising to the
house for the time be had occupied their attention.
Mr. TOWER was understood to say he thought a case
of bribery had bee❑ sufficiently made out, and he consi-
dered it advisable that every constituency should be made
as pure as possible.

Mr. BARING said the measure proposed was too sweep-
ing for the offence alleged, and, if acted upon, no small
borough would be safe. If eleven electors were found
corrupt—(Here some hon. member said thirteen)—well,
even if there were thirteen, or twenty, was that sufficient
to warrant the disfranchisement of 211 burgesses ?
(Hear, hear.) These were rather dangerous fruits of
reform. They would not dare treat large towns thus. if
the case of Liverpool were similar, there would he much
hesitation. If this plan were proceeded in, they would
goon do away with the constituency in all places where
the franchise was confined. The house, instead of pro-
ceeding in this manner, should act upon some general
measure which would apply to all cases. The proposed
measure was novel, unconstitutional, and calculated to
form an important and dangerous precedent.
Mr. TANCIZED (as we could learn) urged the neces-
sity of making an example of this borough, which, he
contended, was so overborne by corruption as to defy cor-
rection. Indeed, it was so corrupt that the very magis-
trates were implicated, and the poor rates made use of as
an instrument of influence. A sum of 8,0001. had been
distributed, arid 4,2001. bad been claimed by publicans.
Riots had arisen, and the military were introduced, who
remained to the end of the election. The committee of
inquiry had found out that treating to a very great extent
had been practised by both parties, e.pelially in the period
from October to December. He would support the measure,
as he believed an infusion of new blood into the constitu-
ency would tend to render it more healthy.

Lord EASTNOR contended that there was no room
for a charge of corruption against Lord Warwick, and
believed boa. members bad taken very prejudicial views
of this affair without being sufficiently acquainted with
particulars.
Mr. E. B. KING said, unless the bill passed there
would be nothing like purity of election in Warwick. The
inhabitants of Warwick would not consider this bill as any
punishment.
An HON. MEMER referred to the evidence given before
the committee, in order to rebut the statement that no
windows were broken during the election.
Sir R. FERGUSON replied.
The bill was then read a second time without a division,
and ordered to be committed on Wednesday next.
Mr. HALCOMII hoped the hon. and gallant officer
would postpone the third reading of the bill till after the
motion relative to Lord Warwick was disposed of, whose
conduct there appeared to be some desire to impugn.
Sir R. FERGUSON, under the unfortunate circum-
stances of the case, really could not interfere.
LIVERPOOL DISFRANCHISEMENT.

Mr. BENETT moved the order of the day for the
second reading of the Liverpool Disfranchisement Bill.
The order of the day having been read, the hon. member,
who, owing to some confusion in the house, was scarcely
audible, said (as we understood) as his noble opponent did
not, at this stage of the bill, intend to divide the house,
he should be very brief in the observations be was about
to address to them.

Lord SANDON—I certainly mean to divide.
Mr. BENETT—If that was the case he should feel it
necessary to trouble the house, and state to it the nature
of the proposition, and the evidence on which it was
founded. Before coming to this, however, he would
allude to a report which first appeared (as we understood
the hon. member) in a Liverpool paper, that this bill was
secretly promoted by the government, and that he had
brought forward this measure at the instigation of, and to
please his Majesty's ministers, and not from a sense of
duty. He most distinctly denied the truth of such a
statement.— (Hear, hear.) This hill had no secret sup-
port from Government, as far as he was aware. He had
never asked for any such support. He did not want it
(Hear, hear.) He wanted no support but that of a House
of Commons determined, as he firmly believed, to do its
duty.—(Hear.) He brought forward this measure from
a sense of duty alone. Perhaps the best mode of impart-
ing to the house the object of the bill would be to read
the report of the committee. It would be remembered
that he was chairman of that committee, which com-
mittee declared that gross bribery and corruption prevailed
at Liverpool. As such chairman, it became his duty to
introduce the bill into the house. He introduced that
measure originally, but postponed it at the wish of Go-
nmight nottheinatsesrefmerbeliwngitohf
tiohltee
discussionverm e n
t
new parliament the house thought proper to grant another
inquiry, confining that inquiry to what had taken place
Go-
vernment,of i n order
t e that
Reform it
Bill.
during the last election. That committee sat, and by a
majority of 3 to 1, declared the existence of most gross
bribery and corruption. The hon. member then pro-
ceeded to read from the report of the committee published
last session, and then reterred to the speech of Lord J.
Russell when the first bill was withdrawn, who said
that when the Reform Bill was passed he hoped the
honourable member would feel it his duty to renew the
bill, for the purpose of punishing such corrupt practices ;
and Me. Wynn had also concurred in the opinion of the noble
;ord, and declared that if he had a seat in the house the
measure should have his support. There was now pre-
vailing abroad a rising interest in favour of these parti-
cular and local reforms, even amongst those who objected
to wholesale and sweeping measures. The cry of these
latter was, Give us a specific case, and we will at once
grapple with it, and fairly consider any measure you may
found upon it, but we will not have reform by wholesale.

Here, then is a case of this description.—(Hear, hear.)
At the former election, no less than 2,661 of the freemen
were bribed, only 992 not having taken any.—(Hear,
hear.) The total number of freemen registered for 1832
was 3,628, out of whom about 801 would be entitled to
vote as householders. this he Would say, that he had
been upon many election committees, and had gained
much experience on these subjects, but in the whole course
of his experience he never saw anything so wholesale—so
gross—as the bribery practised at Liverpool, nor any set
of men so determined to take bribes, and not to vote with_
out being bribed, as the freemen of that town. In tit_
language of Lord john Russell he called upon the ree
formed parliament to restrain this gross corruption. Th
hon. member then referred to the evidence of Mr. John
Atkinson, and detailed the case of a poor man, who, by
the importunities of a canvasser for Mr. Denison, who
offered him 501,, and the influence of his wife, who called
on him to think of his poor children, was prevailed upon
to vote for Mr. Denison, though he had previously re-
ceived a smaller sum from his master, to vote the other
way.
The man went up to the hustings very much dis-
tressed, and after he bad voted, Mr. Denison thanked him,
and held out his hand, but the man drew back, and ex-
claimed,
" No ! I have given him my vote, but I cannot
give him my hand."—(Hear.) He wanted to rescue
these unfortunate wretches from similar degradation.—.
(Hear.) Talk of this bill being a punishment to the
in-
dividuals, indeed ! It was for their good ; it
suche to
their advantage to protect them from the arts of
seducers.—(Hear, hear.) He would detain theT ~thouussednido
~ these
would
longer, but simply move the second reading.
sib pe ( wish
HRt el° aG: , see
hyet ah
\re
v.
Dr. NICHOLLS never denied that gross briber had
)AprsinocNiplesecoofndtleade
tßhetfmoromtioßni.ll y
followed
prevailedthemonce
had
been infi vteh
eel
ebcotri
oonusg—h ;twbou tfofrrommayloBrs3,oa,nttibtohurg he
for representatives in Parliament—no bribery could be de-
tected (much as instances had been sought for), with the
exception of those few isolated cases which amounted to
the vast sum of 401.
Lord SANDON asked, why did they now wish to de-
prive the freemen of their rights? Simply because they
had ceased to be their tools.—(Hear.) There was an
inveteracy of persecution shown here, wholly unparalleled
in the history of Parliament. The hon. member for
Wiltshire, who, he must say, had opened the case in a fair
and dispassionate spirit, said that the committee had come
to the conclusion that gross bribery bad prevailed in 1832,
an assertion in which he was not supported, for the report
distinctly declared that the bribery had neither been ex-
tensive nor important.—( Hear, hear.) If the body now
attempted to be disfranchised had been householders, and
not freemen deriving their elective right from the Reform
Bill, however gross the corruption might have been, such
a bill as this would not have been listened to. And
why were the rights of freemen to be held by a slighter
tenure than those of the 101. householders ? It never
could be the meaning of honest men, by a side-wind, to
disturb those men in the enjoyment of their rights—they
would rather come forward at once, and boldly propose an
alteration in the Reform Bill, so as to disfranchise them
openly and fearlessly. The usual remedy in these cases—
where remedy was really required—was to add a new and
enlarged constituency to the old, and why should they
now depart from it? If, however, the House was deter-
mined to punish, let their vengeance fall on those who had
sinned themselves, and induced others to sin, and not on
the poor, who had fallen because powerfully led into temp-
tation.---(Hear.) Would the rich be let off, and the poor
sacrificed ? Was that the justice of a reformed Parlia-
ment? But it was much the fashion with those who had
liberty ever in their mouths, to be found foremost to assail
that class whose votes were against them, in order to put
others who might be more agreeable to their views in their
places. He would move as an amendment that the bill
be read that day six months.
Mr. ROTCH rose amid loud cries of " Question," and
said there could be no doubt but that bribery and
corruption had prevailed in Liverpool to a greAt and dis-
graceful extent. It was clear as day that the freemen
were in the habit of openly selling their votes. He (Mr.
Rotch) remembered in 1827, that the Quarter Sessions
were put off for an entire week in consequence of the elec-
tion of mayor then going forward. The noble lord had
said there was only an item of 48/. for bribery in the re-
port be held in his hand. True, there was that item, but
then there were also sums stated to the amount of 20, 30,
and 40,0001., the price of the votes of the freemen of Li-
verpool. At most, however, it would not now be entirely
disfranchised, and the house was called upon to deal ino,t
moderately with them. They certainly would be disfran-
chised as freemen, but then they might fall back upon the
franchise which they had acquired under the Reform Bill.
Mr. HODGSON objected to disturb the original ar-
rangement, unless there were grounds shown for so doine.
The bill to disfranchise was withdrawn its 1831,and until
fresh cause was given he should vote against the present
measure.

Mr. FLEETWOOD opposed the present bill, becauv
it was a measure which would press only against the poor.
The Reform Bill was intended to extinguish corrupt bo-
roughs, and why, then, was Liverpool passed over in
1831 ? Why have waited till the present moment, if the
purification was so necessary?
An Hox. MEMBER (whose name we could not learn)
defended Mi. Foster, the tow❑ clerk, against the charges
which had been made against him.

Mr. T. GLADSTONE was well acquainted with the
present Mayor of Liverpool and Mr. Faster, and he could
bear the strongest testimony to their high and honourable
characters.

Mr. BENETT briefly replied.
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when there
appeared—

For the original motion
For the amendment 3B
Majority in favour of the second reading -15.2

Being readmitted we found
Lord SANDON complaining of the absence of Minis-
ters, and saying that at least one Minister of the Crow❑
ought to have been present during the discussion which
had taken place.
Mr. P. THONISON considered the question was one
which ought to be solely decided by the members of that
house. It was one in which it was not necessary or proper
that Government, as a Government, ought i❑ any way to
interfere.

Sir R. INGLIS thought the subject was so important,
it was not at all respectful on the part of Ministers towards
the members of that house not to have at any rate one of
their number present.
Mr. R. WASON hoped that Government would always
leave such questions to be decided, without any interfe •
rence, by the members of that house, and that they would
never come down to tamper or meddle with such discus-
sions.

After a few words from Mr. HODGSON and Mr. BENETT,
the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted on Wednesday next.
The other orders of the day were then deferred to Fri-
day nest.
CONVICTED FELONS' PROPERTY.
Either
andM
of convicted felons. lie said his object was to
property
amendr .R OTtCh movedel-ILaw
of for
Forfeiturelea ve to a
sbring
regardsin atib,
ei bill to alter
personal
's family, or give the Court before which prisoners were tried the power
certain amount. He thought that such property, instead
illdts:heteoebfifobnfooeruduptnr,rhdifestoootl pillhod.rai that o nh
ee
r had a hundred
meb etri
of disposing of felons' property, wherweefirinaTtgyittwihdhaeyonesnox:.tp_exceed a
of being handed over to the Treasury, to the shetiff, to
the constables, or elsewhere, ought to be left to the Court
consent of the Crown to bring in the
tsttphoohuoeeprudiepponiostrsdiproaseotsimdieshneenhiumocietbffyi,eohinatubl:danesnittoeoptsmaseprewrtioiotielvfsi
bill.

The SPEAKER—Who authorised the hon. member to
say he had the consent of the Crown ?
Mr. ROTCH—Lord Althorp.
Mr. ELLICE asked his hon. friend to defer his motion
until his noble friend Lord Althorp should be in his place.
Mr. ROTCH had been induced last session to put off a
similar motion, and—

The iPEAKER—Whetber it be a hardship on the
hon. member or not, unless he be authorised by a mini-
ster present to say that he has the consent of the crown, the
house cannot permit him to go on, nor can 1, as Speaker
of this house, put the question.