The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-13 00:00:00

BRIBERY AT LIVERPOOL ELECTIONS.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, as the House were
about to appoint a Committee upon the subject of bribery
at the elections for Liverpool, and as it was desirable
that the Committee should be appointed by lot, he
thought it advisable that be should state the man-
ner in which it should be carried into effect.—
(Hear.) It was not necessary for him to say any thing
upon the particular case of Liverpool, because the House
had decided on a former day, that it was a case that
called for inquiry. It was a precedent of great importance
which was now to be set up with regard to an inquiry
into bribery and corruption ; and it might be useful if he
stated generally what was the view which he had
always taken, and which he should now recommend
to the Howe. Anciently, and by the constitution
of the House, when inquiries of that kind were caused,
they were referred to a Committee of Privileges, consisting
of the whole, or nearly the whole, of the House. There
were many cases, not long after the revolution,' in which
that course had been pursued. There was one memo-
rable instance of Sir Edward Seymour, who charged a
person, named Shepherd, in respect of four boroughs,
with endeavouring to carry an election by bribery—that
case was referred to a Committee of Privileges, Sir Edward
Seymour acting as chairman. The House resolved that
he had made good his charge, and the Speaker was di-
rected to return him the thanks of the House, which
he did, declaring that although Sir Edward Seymour's
ancestors had rendered their country great service in the
army and navy, there could be no greater service than that
rendered by Sir Edward himself, by which he had restored
the constitution of that House. By the passing of the
Grenville Act, however, that sort of inquiry fell into disuse.
The consequence was, that in a great many cases acts
deeply affecting the constitution of the House, and the re-
presentation and character of the country, were com-
promised and concealed from public view. In many
cases, where one party succeeded by bribery, and an-
other party was the petitioner, the former bribed the
latter not to proceed with the charge of bribery.
That had notoriously happened in many instances, and he
could mention one because he had been concerned in it
himself, namely, Grampound, in which the Committee
only sat a single day, their opinion being that the return
was a good one, and that the petition was neither frivo-
lous nor vexatious. The time had now come when sup-
pressions of the kind he had adverted to ought no longer
to be continued, and when, if it was wished to put an end.to
bribery, the only effectual course of doing so would be to enter
into inquiries as to the cause of it. The method in
which he proposed to do this was, instead of having the
inquiry at the bar of that House, which was an inquiry of
a desultory nature, and in which it was' almost impos •
Bible to get at the truth from the manner in which
the inquiries were answered, and the party feeling
that existed in the examination—he proposed,
that instead of pursuing that method, a Select
Committee should be appointed for any place the
House might think proper to inquire into. The
proposition of hie Hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire

was that the Committee should be named by the party
bringing forward the inquiry. That he (the Noble
Lord) did not consider altogether a proper course
to be adopted. He should therefore propose that
the Committee should be named by lot, with
the distinction that instead of 11, 13 should be chosen—
that instead of 33, only 21 should be chosen, striking
eight off. Many gentlemen, lie knew, had objections
to there being any struck off. He (the Noble Lord)
did not think any great advantage would be derived from
it, but as there might be many persons appointed on the
Committee in favour of the borough against which the
inquiry might be instituted, it might be as well to
continue the adoption of that course. He should
therefore propose that two persons should he nominated to
assist the Committee in striking off the eight Members, and
in the present instance he should propose his Hon.
Friend, the Member for Wiltshire, and the Noble Lord,
the Member . for Liverpool, who would have the
power of striking off four each. The Committee being
thus chosen, they would elect their own Chairman, and
proceed with the severalinquiries submitted to thcm,making
such report to the House as it might legislate upon. Ile
begged, however, to observe that this would not be final,
as any Bill might he introduced contrary to their report.
He would not now state what the nature of any Bill that
might he introduced might be. The present was a subject
of considerable importance, as he considered it the duty of
the House not to allow those scenes of bribery and cor-
ruption which had been continued and augmented in a most
unprecedented manner.—(Heals) It was the duty of the
House, therefore, to take care that any inquiry that
was instituted, with respect to any case of bribery or
corruption, should be a most effectual one. The Noble
Lord concluded by moving the following resolution :
That two Members be named by the House, that 21
Members be chosen by lot from Members then present in
the House, with such exceptions as the House should
admit, and thst the two Members named, as aforesaid,
shall have the liberty to strike off each four of the said 21
—that the remaining 13, with the two named by the
House, constitute a Committee on the Liverpool petition.
The SPEAKER then put the question.
Mr. R. WASON said there would be a great inconve-
nience resulting from two individuals being named for the
purpose of striking off each four from the twenty-one bal-
loted for. He, for example, had for the last four years
been exerting himself for the purpose of putting
down corruption in Liverpool, and he had no doubt
the Noble Lord (Sandon) who had been returned for that
borough, would immediately strike off him (Mr. R.
Wason) from the list, while he (Mr. W.) would at least
be as efficient a Member of the Committee as those
who knew nothing at all of the matter.—(A laugh.) The
fact was, if they wanted to get at the root of the evil,
the only way was to have the very best men in the
Committee. The proposal to strike off any of those who
were balloted for would altogether defeat their end.
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped this amendment would be
acceded to. Undoubtedly the Noble Lord deserved the
gratitude of the House for bringing forward this motion,
and setting an example that be (Mr. O'Connell) trusted
would be followed, of a determination fairly to meet
existing abuses. Hitherto there had been no stimulant
whatever, to bring before the House cases of unsuccessful
bribery. He knew many cases in which the unsuccessful
candidate should have been charged with bribery, and
who, if he had been returned, must have been unseated
on that ground. He particularly alluded to the case of
Tralee, which was represented in that House by a
relation of his own—(Hear, hear, hear)—the
unsuccessful candidate for which, had been guilty
of the grossest bribery. He regretted that the law in its
present state did not contemplate such cases. According
to the information daily received, the most complicated
system of the grossest bribery existed in Liverpool in the
choice of all municipal officers. The most immoral
of all possible scenes frequently occurred, and it
might he said that parties who ought to have been in the
dock in consequence of bribery and corruption, were now
on the bench deciding against knaves of much smaller di-
mensions than themselves. There would be great incon-
venience in the Noble Lord's proposition for two to strike
off four each from the twenty-one balloted for. The
ballot gave a fair chance of an impartial Committee
to all the public. There was no advantage in
it to either side. It was perfectly fair. He hoped the
Noble Lord would think of this. If there was any indi-
vidual more anxious or more qualified than another to
sift evidence, or elicit facts, the consequence of the Noble
Lord's proposition would be that that individual would
be struck off. Corruption of the most complicated
nature had prevailed for a great many years in the
Corporation of Liverpool, and it was absolutely necessary,
in that as in every other instance, that the Committee
should comprehend Members of the most extensive and
intimate acquaintance with the facts of the case before
them. The Committee might with propriety be increased
to fifteen, or else the whole twenty-one balloted for
should remain. If this proposition of the Hon: Member
for Ipswich (Mr. Wason), could not be acceded to, he (Mr.
O'Connell), should deem it proper to take the sense of the
House open it.
Mr. WARBURTON complained that another inconve-
nience would arise from the Noble Lord's proposition.
According to that proposition, only Members then pre-
sent in the House, when their names were called, should
constitute the Committee. Now it was well known that

when there was any particular question on which a Com-
mittee was to be appointed, what was called a " whip"
took place in that House. A great many were
present, or absented themselves, or attended from friend-
ship to those by whom the Committee was promoted.—
(Hear, hear.) He hoped, therefore, the Noble Lord
would consent to extend the provision to all Members who
had not leave of absence, or were not employed in the
service of other Election Committees.
Mr. A. BARING said that that was a qu,stion of the

greatest importance to this House. No doubt, if it merely
concerned the town of Liverpool, they would be anxious
that nothing but what was just should be done; but when
they came to consider that they were now setting a prece-
dent for a ❑ew species of legislation on this subject, they
must take care thatino injustice was done—that they did
not adopt a course which would lead to inconvenience at
future times. If it were requisite to adopt any general

rule upon this subject, they ought to adopt it upon a
consideration of general principles, and not upon the
particular case taf Liverpool alone. With respect to the
practice of bribery, there could be no doubt of their all
being interested in, as well as desirous of putting it down,
by all the means in their power. No gentleman could
object abstractedly to the proposed regulations ; but the
question was, whether the form in which they were
about to set this precedent was the most convenient
which could be adopted ?--(Hear, hear.) Were they
in all cases to proceed in the manner it was
now proposed they should do? Under the Grenville Act,
which now regulated their practice, a Member who was
proved to have obtained his seat by bribery, was compelled
to vacate his seat; but here the charge could have no such
result; and was it not too much to call upon the House to go
back and examine what took place at two or three
elections past? Here no specific charge was broughtlagainst
a Member, or his agent, with a view to unseat that
Member, but a simple vague charge of bribery with re•
spect to the town of Liverpool. Would the Noble Lord
opposite (Lord John Russell) tell him what he understood
by this precedent, which, in his judgment, would be at-
tended with the greatest possible inconvenience? As the
Noble Lord patronized this measure, be (Mr. B.) supposed
that it was in conformity with the legislation upon this
subject, which be intended shortly to recommend to the
Home. Did the Noble Lord mean to propose that upon
every allegation of bribery a Committee should have a right
to be ordered by the House to inquire into it ? Again,
were the persons who made such allegations to be made to
enter into such securities to pay the charges and expenses
of those who might be summoned to give their attendance
at the bar of this House ? On the other band, if the ap-
pointment of a Committee were not to be a matter of
right, but was to rest in the discretion of the majority of
that House, the greatest injustice might be committed.
It was not too much to suppose that all petitions and
complaints against any number of the minority of this
House would be listened to, and have Committees ap-
pointed to investigate their foundation ; whereas, peti-
tions and complaints against any Member of the majority
would at once be dismissed as 'frivolous.—(Hear.) If the
House would not open a door to partiality of this kind, it
must refer all petitions to a Committee for investigation.
In the present instance it was his wish to call the atten-
tion of the House to the awkward position Hon. Mem-
bers were placing themselves in in departing from
the principles of proceedings appointed by this
species of offence ; and if they were to suc-
ceed in establishing the precedent attempted, it
would be attended with the greatest inconvenience to indi-
viduals. In the present instance, he knew nothing about
the particular case of Liverpool, whether there bad been
bribery or not, nor bad he the slightest wish to shelter either
one person or another, if they be found guilty of what
they had been accused. It was important to inquire
here who was to defend the parties accused. The Noble
Lord had said the accusers were persons of great wealth,
and able and willing to prosecute the inquiry ; but who
was to defend the poor men who were accused ? They had
been represented as persons of small means, and as being
in an inferior situation of life, and in what way were
those individuals to be compensated if they were not
guilty—in what way was the expense of their defence

to be defrayed upon an accusation against them—not as a
body, but individually—for acts of bribery or which
each individual would have to defend himself, and the

means of defence must be provided ? After all, what was
to be the result? Suppose it was to be proved there had
been bribery in Liverpool, he (the Hon. Member)
took for granted no Hon. Gentleman had it in con-
templation to disfranchise the borough of Liverpool.
—(Hear.) If there had been bribery, the bribery must
have been by freemen formerly, a large number of
whom were now ten-pound householders, and entitled
to vote, and the only consequence would be that the
_ .

Noble Lord had invested the franchise in iinpropzr per-.

sons—a condemnation of his own Reform Bill, and
which, in all probability, would apply to other

places as well as to Liverpool.—(Hear.) If this was
the Noble Lord's view, and it was his intention to found

some correction upon it of the Reform Bill, that would
be another thing, and might, perhaps, lead to some useful
purpose. But the course the Noble Lord proposed was
one of the greatest importance as it regarded precedent
which, if once set, must be followed, and which it re-
quired the House to look well to.
Mr. BENETT could not let a part of the Hon.
Member's speech pass without making a remark upon it.
He would ask who was to defend the poor men ?
He (Mr. Benett) could assure the Hon. Member that
there was money enough in the hands of the corporation,
and which no doubt would be - applied in defraying
the expenses of those individuals.—(Hear, hear,
hear.) There were plenty of persons who
would be ready enough to undertake the defence
of those freemen, for they were the tools of the corporation.
They were the tools upon which the corporation had
worked before, and upon which they had worked now, and
the Hon. Member might rest satisfied they would not now
be deserted. With regard to the observation of the Hon.
Member for Bridport respecting the mode of making up
the Committees, for his own part, he did not see how
it was possible for gentlemen to be upon a Committee of
this sort, except selected from amongst those who were
present when the ballot was taken, and who answered to
their names.

Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Member who had just sat
down, in reply to the very question of the lion. Member
near him, had said that the corporation funds would be
applied in defending those who, from poverty, were unable
to defend themselves. He (Sir R. Peel) doubted whether
the corporation of Liverpool could apply a single shilling
of the corporation funds in any such -way. The House
would recollect, that during the last session the Act was
passed of the 2d and 3d of William IV., cap. 69,
for the express purpose of preventing corporate funds
being applied to election purposes, and if the House
supposed the corporation funds could be now applied to
such a purpose, that would be neither more nor less than
virtually sanctioning the abrogation of that Act of Par-
liament.--(Hear, hear.) He would advise the treasurer
of the corporation, or whoever the officer might be of the
Liverpool corporation, to take care how be issued money
for this purpose.
Mr. WASON could tell the Right Hon. Baronet that
the corporation of Liverpool hail only last year incurred a
debt of no less than 1,200/. in defending for bribery, and
that that sum was paid by the treasurer of the corporation.
--(Hear, hear.) The expense of last year was paid, and
he had no doubt this year's expense would be paid, by the
corporation.
Mr. W. PATTEN made an observation which was not
audible in the gallery.
Mr. HUME said, there could not be any thing more
clear than that which the Right Hon. Baronet had stated ;
because, after all the discussio❑ which had taken place
upon this subject during the last three or four years, no
body could doubt that the application of corporate funds
to election purposes must be illegal; and if the corpora-
tion of Liverpool had paid 1,200/. in this respect; as the
Hon. Member opposite had stated, he (Mr. H.) would
advise some of the burgesses to bring an action against the
corporation for the recovery back of that money—(Hear,
hear, and laughter)—because he was quite sure that an
action would lie, and that the corporation ought to be
punished for it. With regard to the expense attending
this inquiry, he held that it would be money well expended
in behalf of the public to apply whatever sum might be
necessary to institute and to carry on the inquiry, if it was
likely that inquiry would, as lie hoped, put an end to bri-
bery.—(Hear.) He rose particularly to notice an obser-
vation made by the Hon. Member for Bridport. It ap-
peared to him (Mr. H.) that if they proceeded to a ballot
with one-third of the Members of the House present, it
would not be at all fair. He concurred entirely that the
ballot should be made of the whole of the Members, and
that every Member whose name came up, if he had not
an excuse for attending, should be bound to serve. He
would go further, and say, that the House ought to pass a
regulation to compel the attendance of Members on such
an occasion. It appeared to be understood that it was
often to the interests of both parties to stifle inquiry, and the
object of the Noble Lord was that no such compromise
would be showed. He (Mr. Hume) knew of one instance
besides those which had been related, in which that com-
promise had been effected, because the party accusing
knew that he had been himself as deep in the mire as his
opponent. The objections of the Hun. Member for Essex
were not at all applicable to the present case. He con-
sidered, that so far from the necessity of any fear of the
present proceeding being a precedent, it would be a pre-
cedent in order that parties might know if they were
guilty of similar acts of bribery and corruption, and were
discovered, they would most assuredly be punished.
He entirely concurred in the present motion ; and he sug-
gested to the Hon. Member for Ipswich-(Mr. Wason) to
withdraw his amendment, in order that the amendment of
his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warbur-

ton) might be embodied in the motion ; for there was no
reason why those names of the Committee who were chosen
should not remain on the Committee.
Mr. WARBURTON said he understood that the Hon.
Member for Ipswich would not press his amendment, and
therefore he would propose that some words of the motion
he omitted, and that it be so altered as to except from the
Committee those Members who had not leave of absence,
or who were not already on Committees.
The SPEAKER having put the motion and the amend-
ment,
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY said he did not intend
to put himself forward as a great political economist, but
if the present proceedings were allowed, he predicted that
the proposition of the Noble Lord (Althorp) for his esti-
mates for the present year would fall short.—( Hear, hear.)
His Noble Friend had stated that there would lie no ex-
pense attendant on a Committee, but the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Middlesex had stated, that if the public
were bound to pay altogether the expense of the inquiry,
he should think the money well laid out. He would tell
the Hon. Member for Middlesex that the moment the
public entered into inquiries of this sort there would be nu
end to them.—( Hear, hear.) There would be no defeated
candidate of any description who would not come to the
House with a petition, praying an inquiry into the bribery
that had taken place in the case of his own election. He
could therefore not agree to the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Middlesex, that the public should be called
upon to pay those expenses. That lion. Member had
!voted that this had nothing at all to do with the Gren-
ville Act. He (Sir J. W.) considered that it had a great
deal to do with it. He thought the Grenville Act pecu-
liarly adapted to the very question now before the House;
and although in the case of Grampound the seat was not
affected, yet the House were informed that bribery to a
great extent had taken place there, and acted accordingly.
There were great objections, in his view of the case, to
the adoption of the course proposed by the Noble Lori.
The old rules of the House would be put an end to by it,
the protection which was afforded by those rules would be
altogether useless, and a door would be opened by means
of it, which the House would, in a short time, have occa-
sion to repent of. What species of tribunal, he would
ask, was it which the Noble Lord intended to constitute
by this measure? Were the members of the Committee to
be compelled to attend ? Wou:d it be necessary to have
all the Members present, or what number did the Noble
Lord intend should form a quorum? He thought that
all those inquiries should be answered before the
matter was allowed to proceed farther. It had been said,
however, that the petitioners in the present case were men
of wealth, and would pay the expense of the inquiry
themselves. That might be all very true; but it must be
apparent to the House that by the adoption of the mea-
suuproen
tproposed l
by
withoutthe
halfe L
theo r d
evpi
de re snocnes might
their bfea
favour
being gone into.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY considered that, it having been
decided
amg bae yai
measure
against
eeir
oHousepoo
ns
eetdh
materialab that a
tnh inquiry
Nobleu ir
objectiony
Lw oarsid
ht,tas
whicheerie!
dfaei
ssfdostarphrhtoyehet,
utiteil
tixaeedr
question now was what was the best mode of instituting
t.
e
t
that inquiry ? If he bad been in the House when the me-
e
rits of the Liverpoolori caseonsnst
trthkuai
tnvehgi had
gopf f
abpereri
teot nhvoei
of it,
reeiodit gh t
r before
four
Ai ,e
mh
should certainly have been one of those who would have
Membersufoct from the Committee, who ought
vtbwenooleouurtttnse:hditoe
properly,
rf
oionp,
fheeteruhle
yosisseei
resolution
toyol
whatever for having so many
con-
sider there was any necessity
as 21 Members. He begged:, leave to suggest that the
Committee should be restricted to 15 ; tliat their attend-
: ance should be regular and coercive under this inquiry,
; as well as under the Grenville Act.—(Hear.) He hoped
; the Hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) would

... 1 /Hassell)
adopt this suggestion, and that the Noble I'm." 'n ---sw
would take care to make some provision for insuri g Tnif
larity of attendance by the Committee. Most issoofru"rj:e
the selection in the way proposed, of four by ace
o'' c Or
parties, would be the means of leading to great 0
nicnce and abuse.
as
pool.As Ipr.
e. c
i\HtiVecYalNti
yhNo didtaingdi, t s
otnhl
eoeityienoavnffes:itcditgei sitg:tiniel
eivpbrboeisrcoehnutgi
thp rivoon:_3l,:leti:ei,
proposed to institute should have been gone into rue
the passing of the Reform Bill, especially
bad been prepared for it by the report of the
muchSellec
belfiteewr
mittee on this subject. It would have been oo°4
if the inquiry had_ been made before the future cone 1
,00,
of that borough (Liverpool) had been definitively and °tip;
fixed. The Noble Lord had said that this was all' woo
precedent for future inquiry into any elections where__ ,iOO
',opposed or alleged that undue influence or 00r"_Peeig
to O
tte.
(Ifadalneey•einnitriisveidd.ualsllew(itAhloru.
tWpryernsno)ntallerpersepcoantesdibZalwioi,
tutu such an inquiry before an unsworn C"firforthe
.ording to
Different plans had been at different times pr
opose° ford
trial of contested elections but none had been found s° ej
as in former times, when the Committee ofPrivil"..eed oc.
as that which at present prevailed. If the whole Bouse91:00,
misted of the whole House, questions would be decoLeed
it must be clear that if there did not exist the pon__ol
str ik in g off from the number of anv Committee or Toinuge
there would be a great chance of a prejudiced man upet the
party feeling and not upon their merits. reed
judge.—(Hear, hear.) It was for this reason turaio to
power was given to both parties in a court of Pe If
Tike off a certain number of names from the julttiose
that were not done here the decision of election 1 tbis
as 0et_00...;
would be thrown into the hands of the tnajoriti ° too
House which would feel itself at liberty to vote upon oi
questions in the same manner as it did upon ot.bers'heol.
allow their feelings of party or of affection to guide l
re
He asked whether an instance would be found whe
Mors
charge had been brought against an individual either 0,
a Committee or before the House without tire Prlose.
cused being allowed to be heard by himself or °toil
His Noble Friend (Lord Sandon ) was undoubtedlY e",bit
abgyna,icanesett,nutajnhogorsiientyotitililif: votes,
nwuht:):avneordfeiyact
ocßrer:rlutla)itorsiflpyepedifiidasena oi
alyti:liipel:ooo,, tp
spr(tir•smon,tie.atendtyoi
proceedings
sucherso:nats:islisraotkic
ielie:ddeinntg:)erai bstevdtelriaees present.indu ced t
brie h1:1;0Wrri;
which might perhaps fall to the ground. In a" Ittla
broug
Lord JOHN
rJeOselnitNplaßnU, SaSndELifLthweasHnolout.sepatriitoicu.uglhartlyprjooteets- crileti
ht there ought to be reserved some poWebre°;:ofe..
:obi:mg
adopt any other, he should not be disconteurer,.kil
names off. As to the general resolutions, . h ane
he was opposed to any thing of that sort, Wh.le ,
adopted,
da:v
le).
ttt.el :in:
a(C,Laopff:porpeniomec:iiatinalaNtvtmnit:aeoirni
while
uEtidnt
should
Eric: i
ot time of
Committees
binding
wt I:27:: err:
Sir R. PEEL said, that if the present 10°,,ti°heri soo°.„.
at end, and they would thus lose the best tribuool -
they possessed. dot
wh(F,tivi,olieleinLrecnetoßlhireosedinitrvit:AalrolLTf I
Committeeoll
shouldobserved,
)r tslii,aotu
lthed
nqoute sbtei oat;
r..,,8g7 -00 re (lb;
lect
irbowene
ea:psi:: ii nitpnyt
Committees
: It : vley:9B.t °el:
recollected that the nominees in' the) resent ca°- roiS/1
ttee now proposed only reported to the House; lusbate
nttiltoolloott'sitbnietsbwse:av)allowneclalttEttepwol
must then nh'fie.thtlhteard
proceeding it was not necessary to bear Coun,s°.ce; :Of
were brought la, - i
la 19
, fixed r" colis
:e:saengsstall'ol3la
i:
13:lci:
s'
loittaCluteiol
it.
.t:11 mifialitnibtatoiel evn
that:ewi enli:rjecy3:::::a'tig:ilet ill:1-ftib
rtetn hi:

Lord SANDON complained that no Ole
been established with respect to the numbers an rtoo"—no
reittee—the numbers requisite to forma ettentl,e"
whether or not there should be any compulsori a, 3 VI
from day to day, or otherwise. He thought tbettr,
mittee so appointed would be a tribunal of inign'bi
obj.etea to his being one of the persons notniaaribetei7o
House, as he was interested in the election, an'troted
was placed m a peculiar situation. He en-,„-- coins
House, before they cleated the present maehitterio' '
out explicitly how this casual Committee
‘s?
guided in its proceedins.—(Question.) Arent'
Mr. R. WASON then withdrew his amen-- or
On the original question being put, no Pe-
Mr. C. W 60
. WYNN remarked, that there was or
"0
provided by the Act for non-attendance on lec-; jot
mittees. Cot° d
osifwSutihlrdirßhte.aepPnpEepnFeltrLhsoawro uawlfdteersreu phapapovsii,enogitil,igtaeotdn,aefttielarl
the
tbicti!renbedlerygelt,outi.
.01
deuce, one or more of that Committee shoal" n sing 1-,0
to attend a regular Election Committee. SuPr°ce °r
a ease, would there be a penalty for non-attendaa 'Job°
the House the power to excuse them? tie ..e/
whether the House possessed that power. POOPt
M R.OO.
An Hose. MEBE apprehended that the
bore some analogy with gentlemen in office. ~',01;
excused from non-attendance on Election on
he thought the House could also excuse Pera°Pe
Committee. net 40„
Sir R. PEEL remarked, that the analogy °Woo
perfect, as Ministers were under the obligation 00
Mr. R. WAGON was of opinion that no rerrerbsll:o4
Committee should be required to attend any at-- Dietto
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that as „oil Tis
serving on regular Election Committees were ae-bool°,o
attending this, so Members on this Committee: 0"
excused from serving on any other. The carne
-
to apply to both cases. AN
The original question was then agreed to. e
tlok

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the next t' -fl,to
that the House should appoint two nominee.' iv l'
Air
two words to address to the Noble Lord ope-ttottve
Sandell). He begged to say, that in pror'ilig toe
ble Lord originally he was not to blame, as -:f the, 11
that there was no serious objection on the part ." ore"
tile Lord. If any other Hon. Member was - if
should be glad of it. t eta
Lord SANDON said, in explanation, that is, rdif
did not see any objection to his being one of toeo b I
chosen by the House; but that on considers° (Oho,
fore,bif eieieslilstrtloelbedpeegorughpjeeiodfcnt
aitonointy.sd
ehocnelHienloteaowdftebvetaehlrnre,eoambpdeieynr
st!ioht(iniooi
itnni
gt,caidlp,:opouoiteitijos
sr, : ,Dahi
to 1 0 sl4y
te ts.d
House were a lawyer, to aid the inquiries shoothea arte
made by his professional acumen. He bad srt° 10°0
the matter to the Hon. Member for Devonl)°,,,,r-e'ots%,f,
fused on the ground of professional engage d
feared that other professional gentlemen 'l.; thtii
upon similar grounds. He was glad to pt. ho f
Hon Friend near him, the Member for CardiwasscV,
moment offered his services. Before be s°,oo'i.
would mention that he held in his hand a p"fteee)Siii
the Corporation of Liverpool, in behalf of thectoot lit
that town, praying to be beard before the PrnortUill
mittee, which lie should take the proper opr-
moving. Die' triJ
Lord J. RUSSELL then proposed that noio
and Mr. J. Nichol! be the two nominees I,
that House.right tgi„ll
Mr. BENETT said that he also had a ~,,, ted Oo tr,
plain of being nominated, as he was int2';beslicetif
L,lpinanoiewovsAnresyiteirebipiolooefur
J.
lip.itohaeNanleelsyiactcl‘tilsviieoheuyienoeo,oru).
nt,iLie,ilLdhTs.:srhd
,o,pu
rgohm hi
see d o bhjee c‘tveodu
itdo 0 his I
further the inquiries demanded. 0001 4
An HON. MEMBER objected to the aPll°-, if ,
thing to do with the Committee.
aevi(deLaattnuhdgaaht tptleharr:l:uylogees proposed
bdibard:tt:ie- ' e: is, obcoeiiii! sl°l:llji''
the mystification of lawyers, and wished " teIVA
adequate to the appointment, be would n - JP'
the duties of it. /3,00 an .'
It was then agreed to, that Mr. follrii,
Nicholl be of the Committee. to .. 1,..
A ballot was then proceeded to, vibe° ooralfrip
i‘niarm.eßs wAe.re
Ocshwoaselini,:—Llkr.lr.:lexiai:deir, 13:: 13mikrda
C. Langdale, Mr. E. G. Hornby, Mr' % . Dlr., V
Thomson, Sir H. Verney, Mr. J. Air' '-
ixyli.eo,ett,
J.,:torali
Barnard, Lord Dudley Coutts Stuart, ootan
nell, Mr. Josiah Wedgewood, Mr. Tinguas ter 11°%ft/
R. Wason objected to the name of the hlt barge tees
ber, as his election was disputed on theee_ed to 11
perjury and corruption.—The Speaker begged cooed,
the Hon. Gentleman, that such a rems tlo,otiePoi
with bad grace from him; and that 11 ",:„00 IV
no use, unless he meant to found a motnglisrfentf ~
G. Williams, Mr. Ed. Curteis, Mr. kesvi,footish',6
W. Turner, Mr. B. Handley, and Mr. J•Zin besll
Lord SANDON presented a Pet!ti°n r:r thee's
tion of the town of Liverpool, praying
0'0(
C'ri pi
Mr. EDWARD ELLICE moved for 1. fate
.'1
4
who inig e ir
a Bill to indemnify certain parties
beardnat da i,
dibnuy
pst(u)h.pepitrobret Counselof
table.
tte
their
before i
itehgeoC. o mitt ni
give evidence relative to the circurnstanf,,eo ssorl
lion for the borough of Stafford. It 11'
_l..i7i ea 0141
that an almost universal corruption prev!witree,
BOROUGH OF STAFFORD
rough during the late electioo; and a CAnt"_ niolc.e.o
consequently appointed by the House, (i. to DP
into the subject, which Was, he believe°,
.EL.eittee :Irv.

rl (R 61411).
•ne roe-
stasoU
It if the
eattoconye,

§ 001
;tin° loted,
apP°'„ be
It 013910 old
t o",i,fge
the,' ti,e
irld th3COOV
.I`wth furpc:
o! abao
to 3? „bd
onciusio,
stage ()for if
unsel ;
CAW'
t in/
,e(1 rulecor
of the
/10(10:wee
TY a'enCaer
; that: 3,, lie
niqutt the
;oat," "' fore
and oil 01
entreated tot:
roil oto f' 'l4
, t

ritiMerit.
va@l).° 0P Co
its Co
eteireadisly,,
66
I), resat° cl
oipn
?P...c
da, Or
,1104
1071ottU
t ("I
le Pre ore
0 thd.toi,
Conviolin
,ersos'

tlite
Dot
WtOf
3, dhi,
ion ° „ 00 t,
rerb°"ollo"4
other led?
as fri'°
e%cu'e'
hoo
,gt,
ttee oo-
Lai° ill

•4:
,EC ri(3l)°lte;
leave cAll
i4ht b:1,0;
tbl,9eri
been .0 ojl
ailed e 114
oolit;e
to 1)0
oh to