The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-05 00:00:00

the deliberations of the Government, without doing the
least good. lf, however, the Hon. Gentleman should not
adopt his suggestion by withdrawing his motion, he (Lord
Althorp) must declare that he could not feel justified in
voting against it. But at the same time he trusted the
Hon. Gentleman would comply with his request, as he
must see that no advantage whatever would be obtained
by a merely !amen charter.
Mr. W. WYNN had no objection that a Charter should
be granted to this establishment; but still the House
would do well, before they concurred in the motion, to
consider in whom the Constitution vested the power of
granting it. By the Constitution, this power belonged to
the King, and the question therefore was, would they not
he interfering with the prerogative of the Crown if they
agreed to the present proposition ?—(Cries of " No, no.")
He contended that not only would such an address as the
Hon. Gentleman called for be an interference with the
prerogative of the King, but that the motion was in itself
premature, as tile matter was under the consideration of
the Government. He said this without meaning any hos-
tility to the institution, for in fact he had given some
proofs of the wish which he entertained for its SllCcess.
(Hear, hear.) But he must at the same time join in the
request made by the Noble Lord, merely because be tie. tight
the motion would operate as an improper interference
with the prerogative of the Crown.
Sir R. INGLIS would not have risen on this occasion
if the Noble Lord had placed the matter in its right light,
namely, as his Right Hon. Friend had stated, that the
motion would be an interference with the prerogative of
the Crown. That was the question which in limine the
Noble Lord ought to have raised. The object of the ad-
dress proposed to be presented to the King was th ;t his
Majesty would be pleased to grant a charter to a body
which had been associated together voluntarily, and b,ire
all the characteristics of a joint-stock company.—(Cries
_of " No, no.") He contended that the shares of the in-
stitution were as marketable as the shares of any other
company that had been formed in the year 1825. In
fact it had been one of the speculations which were set on
foot during that year.—( Cries of "No, no.") If he was
wrong in this he was at all events right in saying
this establishment was formed in 1825.—(Hear, hear.)
The House would recollect that in the May of that
year the Hon. and Learned Member for Winchilsea,
who had since been elevated to the Woolsack, brought
in a Bill for the purpose of giving a charter to this
institution. It was discovered, however, that this

was a private and not a public measure, and the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman consequently withdrew his Bill.
But, although he had been in that House from June, 1825,
to November, 1830, four years and a half afterwards, he
bad never deemed it necessary to bring the subject for-
ward, although it was in his power to have done so if he
thought fit. When that Bill was introduced the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman expressly stated that none of the
privi'eges which he intended to confer on this institution
would enable it to confer degrees, or give fellowships or
scholarships. He never intended that it should enjoy any
privilege which could at all interfere with the two Uni-
versities; and he (Sir R. Inglis) was of opinion that it
would be most improper to confer such privileges upon
any joint-stock companies, for in no other light could he
regard this establishment. It was clear that the Govern-
ment could have no knowledge of the doctrines that were
to be taught in the London University ; and, as to the
granting of honorary rewards for scientific purposes, it
was as much in the power of that institution to do so now
as if a charter were granted to it, as it was perfectly
indifferent whether the reward was a wreath of parsley
or of laurel. The object of the present motion, how-
ever, seemed to be to acquire political privileges,
and that should never have his sanction. Knowledge
without power was only a more extended means of doing
mischief. It had been so for 6,000 years, and, as re-
ligious instruction was to form no part of the system of
education in this institution, he was convinced that incor-
porating it would be attended with more evil than good.
He concurred in the request that the Han. Gentleman
mould withdraw his motion, but on other grounds than
those stated by the Noble Lord.
Mr. SLANEY also joined in the request that his Hon.
Friend would withdraw his motion, and he did so not in
any spirit of hostility towards the London University, but
from a desire that the whole matter should be left in the
hands of the Government. A large portion of the popu-
lation was wholly uneducated for all useful purposes. It
had been said that great power bad been placed in the
bands of the lower classes, and he did not regret it ; but
it was necessary to make that power useful and not dan-
gerous, that the people should be educated. He was
one who thought that the education of the people should
he a combined religious education—(Hear)—and that no
other was entitled to support; but not such a system of
exclusion as would shut out one-third of the population.
.Mr. STRUTT was much disappointed by finding this
not made a Government question. The nation was much
disappointed that the taxes on knowledge were not re-
pealed. The question was, not what was expedient at the
time when Lord Brougham disclaimed a desire, on the
part of the University, to grant degrees, but what was ex-
pedient at the present moment? The Hon. Baronet had
called the London Uuiversity a joint-stock company. It
edght be so, hut it sought no profit; its only object was
to diffuse the blessings of education amongst all classes.
He did not wish to depreciate the two Universities, to one
of which be owed much, but he thought it vet y objection-
able that these honours should be confined only to those
of the Established Church.

Mr. ABERCROMBY had advocated the new esta-
blishment, because be thought it would he the means of
extending the advantages of a University education to
classes of persons now excluded from them ; and .ilso be-
cause the method was not a new experiment, but had been
already practised m the portion of that empire to which he
(Mr. Abereromby) belonged with distinguished success. It
had been provided that the University should not have the
power of granting any degree in theology, and lie was of
opinion that that provision was amply sufficient to avert
any of those dangers to the Established Church whieh ex-
cited the alarm of some Hon. Members. He thought th tt
a degree ought to be made a distinction, whose importance
should be estimated by the character of the University by
which it was conferred. But as his Majesty's Ministers
had expressed themselves favourable to conferring the
powers required by the London University, he thought,
upon the whole, that it would be better to withdraw the
motion at present.
Mr. ESTCOURT had no objection to granting Char-
ters to the new Universities ; but the great point
was, what was to be the contents of these Charters?
Mr. TOOKE said, his plain course was to divide the
House. If the address were voted, it would then be left
to his Majesty's discretion to determine the nature of the
Cbarterli.

Mr. HUME said, that having the pledge of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to bring forward a meaFure for
effecting the objects of the motion, he would strongly re
commend is withdrawal.

Mr. TOOKE would very reluctantly, and with a very
bad grace, withdraw his motion.
LIVERPOOL ELECTION.

Mr. MARK PHILLIPS rose to propose the motion of
which he had given notice :—" That the Committe ap-
pointed to inquire into the matters complained of in the
petition of the electors and inhabitants of Liverpool, pre-
sented to the House on the 21st of Februiry, 1833, which
Committee was instructed to report in the first place the
result of their inquiries into bribery and corruption at
the last election, having pre,eoted such first report, be in-
structed to pursue their inquiries into the whole of the
matters complained of in the said petition, and repro t the
result of such inquiries to the House from time to time."
He had no private motive in bringing forward this motion.
In a population of two hundred thousand in Liverpool, it
appeared that there were eleven thousand electors, of
whom a large portion depended upon the ancient franchise.
His great anxiety was to eradicate these practices entirely
front Liverpool, and to prevent them from spreading to
other boroughs.
Mr. LANGDALE contended that it had never been
understood that the inquiries of the Committee were to be
directed to the expediency of carrying the principles of
which the Reform Bill was founded into further effect in
the borough of Liverpool. He should oppose the motion.
Mr. WARBURTON admitted that the report of the
Committee which had already sat, stated that it did not
appear that bribery and corruption had been exten,ively
and systematically practised by the candidates at the recent
election for Liverpool. But it was distinctly to be seen
by the evidence, that the electors themselves were as dis-
posed to bribery and corruption as ever. Ile repeated,
that unless the report of the Committee had established
the purity of the electors of the borough of Liverprad, the
Committee ought to be re-appointed. The Hun. 111etnber
then read the evidence of Mr. Theal, to prove that a Mr.
Ackers and Mr. T. Horsfall, the son of the AL)or of
Liverpool, offered half a day's wages to various bodies of
the old voters, to induce them to come up to the p-11, and
the testimony of some other person to prove that ribbonswere given away with sovereigns wrapped up in them.
Another part of the case referred to the conduct ~f the
canvassers, who, it was proved, went up to the polling-
booths with voters, not a small proportion of who', were
in a state of intoxication. Others, too, on the briber)
oath being tendered, declined to take it, for though their
rtneciencel would allow them to take bribes, they were
not strong enough to take that, and refused to do so. The
canvassers, however, oh Lord Sandon and Sir H. Douglas,
it was proved, bad again brought these recusants op,

urging them by every argument to swear they had not
been bribed, or been promised a bribe. One, it was i"
evidence, said "No, he'd be cursed if he'd take that oath,"
and made off; and another said, " No, I'll not take that
oath, but I will swear by - I have been bribed ;" and
a third said " he would swear he had not been bribed, but

he could not swear be had not been promised a bribe."
The Hon. Member, after going through some other parts
of the evidence, said that he had shown sufficient ground
for continuing this inquiry, which had been so ably com-
menced.

An How. MEMBER should regret much if the useful
labours of this Committee should be discontinued.
Another How. MEMBER thought that after the exten-
sion of the franchise at Liverpool under the Reform Bill,
no further proceedings were to be taken with respect to
that borough. He could not see the use of continuing the
Committee, without the House meant to follow np its
report with some mark of reprobation.
Mr. HOULDSWORTH regretted the absence of the
Hon. Member for Birmingham, for he might learn from
the discussion of this evidence, that in the event of a paper
circulation, the price of votes, like that of other articles,
would rise considerably.—(A laugh.) He thought that if
Liverpool was punished, something ought to be done with
other places equally corrupt.
Mr. LLOYD must declare that he never looked at the

Reform Bill as an amnesty for the past corruptions of
Liverpool. The question before the House was one of
principle. In his opinion, a case was made out requiring
the House to probe the matter to the utmost ; and he
should, therefore, vote for continuing the Committee.
Mr. BANNERMAN supported the motion for continu.
ing the Committee.

Mr.NICHOLL contended that no case of general bribery
had been established at Liverpool—consequently, that the
cas« did not come within the Bill of the Noble Paymaster
of the Forces. He should, therefore, vote against the
Committee.

Mr. AGLIONBY thought that further inquiry ought
to take place, and unless some additional proceedings were
instituted, those that had hitherto taken place must be
considered a mere farce.

Mr. BANNERMAN explained.
Mr. NICHOLL also said a few words in explanation,
which were not heard.
Mr. GASKELL was of opinion that further investi-
gation was not necessary.
Mr. GLADSTONE admitted the corruption and dis-
grace of the election of 1530, but contended that no such
circumstances of guilt had attended the last election. In
1830, the corruption had partly arisen from accident. In
the name, then, of justice and common sense, he besought
them not to sacrifice the rights of the poor freemen of
Liverpool to the establishment of a general principle—a
principle derived from particular cases, and therefore in
much danger of being fallacious.
Mr. WASON said the case of those who contended for
inquiry had been fully made out by the evidence.
Mr. HODSON would vote against the inquiry.
Mr. C. W. WYNN might, perhaps, have agreed to
punish the delinquency while that delinquency was fresh ;
but since the Reform Act, the new constituency had been
so mixed up with the old, that he thought, in any attempt
to punish the really guilty, the innocent might suffer. It
did not appear to him, that, with respect to Liverpool,
there had been established any amount of corruption beyond
that which is generally inseparable from large communities.
Mr. O'CONNELL appealed to the House, in the name
of honour and justice, to allow a further inquiry.
Lord SANDON said the real question was, whether the
allegations of bribery had been substantiated? He denied
that they had, and he defied any one to prove it. And
what was the extent of this "gross system of bribery," even
if proved ? Why it appeared that there was a direct sum
of 31. 7s. 6d. alleged, with several other items amounting
to the enormous sum of 341. Here was a sum to overbear
a constituency of between 4,000 and 5,000.—(A laugh.)
Oh, there was one other sum too alleged to have been ex-
pended in treating this constituency-61. 12s.—(A laugh. )
The other allegation was, that the electors of Liverpool
were grievously given to receive bribes ! Was it upon such
grounds as these, mere allegations, that the House were to
disfranchise such a constituency as that of Liverpool ?
(Hear.) There had undoubtedly been some bribery com-
mitted two or three elections ago, when there was a tre-
mendous contest, but he knew to a certainty that nothing
of the sort was known at Liverpool now, or would be ever
again perpetrated.

Colonel WILLIAMS had been well acquainted with
Liverpool for the last 35 years, and had never known more
than one Magistrate elected by anything like pure means.
The question at present was only inquiry; but he hoped
that inquiry would lead to disfranchisement. He was an
elector himself—(A laugh)—but rather than not have such
a nest of bribery and corruption broken up, he would
share the fate of disfranchisement himself.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY opposed the inquiry.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the motion lO6
Against it B4
Majority

On our admission into the gallery, we found
Lord SANDON moving as an instruction to the Com-
mittee, that inquiry should be made relative to the two
last elections, commencing with that of 1831, whether
general corruption and brhtery did exist at those elections ;
and also for the names of the persons guilty of corruption,
and the amount of the sums given to each of them.
Mr. J. NICHOLL seconded the motion.
The question was put from the Chair.

Mr. R. WASON did not see what advantages could
result from the motion, unless it was intended to stifle
inquiry. The writ of 1831 was sent down by that House,
in order that the Noble Lord might have a seat to defend
the electors and the interests of the b,,rough.
Mr. WARBURTON said that an inquiry should be
instituted as to the corruption of the sources of justice,
and that it was therefore of much more consequence to
inquire how the Magistrates were elected, and how Mern•
hers were elected. He thought the instructions should be
left to the discretion of the Committee, and said that no
restrictions should be placed on their inquiry.
Mr. P. HOWARD was of opinion, that as the House
would have to decide judicially upon the merits of the case,
it would advance the ends of justice to regulate the course
the Committee should pursue, and not to admit all kind of
hearsay evidence.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY knew, from experience, that a
Select Committee was a bad mode of inquiring into muni
cipal corruptions.
Lord SANDON should withdraw his motion, with the
understanding of bringing it forward at a future period.
Mr. HUNlE—After the question had been now so fully
discussed, the Noble Lord ought not to be allowed to do
so. If there were any amendments to be proposed, that
was the time for putting them.
Lord SANDON still persisted in his wish to withdraw
his motion.

Mr. GORDON said, that there still remained much
important business to transact, and that the House should
not permit the Noble Lord to withdraw his motion.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS (we believe)considered it the duty
of the Noble Lord to promote inquiry in the present else,
instead of throwing obstacles in its way.
Col. WOOD thought, that the House should treat the
Noble Lord with common courtesy. If it did not, he
should move the adjournment of the House.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to rewind Hon. Members
that they were now at the 4th, or rather at the sth ofJuly,
and that the public business ought net to he delayed by
this special pleading for the borough of Liverpool.
The question that the House do now adjourn having
been put,
Mr. ELLIS should oppose the withdrawal of the mo-
tion ; but if the Howie was called upo❑ to adjourn, that
was an evil he should be obliged to submit to.
Lord SANDON said the motion for adjournment was
only made in consequence of the lack of courtesy of Hon.
Gentlemen. His Gallant Friend would, no doubt, can-
ent to withdraw his motion for adjournment, if he (Lord
Sandon) were allowed to withdraw his own motion.—
(No, no.)

CARTER said that the Noble Lord should rem)).
lent that, when a motion was allowed to be withdrawn,
it was upon an understanding that it was not to be brought
forward again. _ _ _

Colonel WOOD, if allowed, should move the o adi urn.
meat of the debate instead of that of the House. adjourn.

The gallery W 34 then cleared for a division upon the
adjournment of the House, hut none took place.
On our admission into the gallery, we found Colonel
WILLIAMS moving for copies of the religious tests re-
quired .to be taken by persons admitted into or taking
degrees at the Universities of Oxford and Camb: idge,
which, after some discussion, was agreed to.

HAILS.
Arrived. Due. Arrived. Due.
0 America 1 0 Hamburg 0
0 Brazil
0 Buenos Ayres 0 0 Jamaica 0
0 Carthagena 0 0 Leeward Islands ... 0
I Dublin 0 0 Lisbon 0
0 Flanders 0 0 Malta 0
France 0 0 Sweden
0 Guernsey &Jersey.. 0 i 1 Waterford 0