The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-13 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL FREEMEN BILL.

On the moti,n that the house go into committee on
the Liverpool Freemen Bill,

Mr. HODGSON rose to move an amendment to the
bill, but was interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who said that the mode of proceeding
by moving an amendment, would be informal. The
proper mode of procedure for the hon. member would be,
to put his motion in the form of an instruction to the
committee.

Mr. HODGSON then rose and said, that the objects
of the instruction to the committee he was about to move
were threefold. The first was, that punishment should
be extended to ell those persons who had been proved to
b. guilty of giving bribes, as well as to those who had
been guilty of receiving them. The second was to limit
the punishment to such of the electors as had accepted of
bribes, or were proved to have participated in the bribery
practised on the occasion. The third object was to pre-
vent such persons as had been convicted of bribery at
Liverpool, from coming in as electors in any other consti-
tuency. It was the intention of the hon. member (Mr.
Benett) who introduced the bill, to make it conformable
to Lord John Russell's hill. He did not go so far as that
bill. He conceived it a bard case that a whole consti-
tuency should be punished for the crimes committed by a
part of their number. Of the constituency of Liverpool
at the time of the election, at which bribery had been
proved to have been practised, there were 840, against
whom not even a charge of corruption had been pre-
ferred, far less proved. Since then the number of pure
voters who had been added would make the number of the
uncorrupted constituency at that place about 1,000. He
thought that such constituents ought not to be disfran-
chised for the offences committed by others of the electors.
There were no fewer than 550 voters who had a right to
exercise the elective franchise as householders, who would
be deprived by this bill of that right as freemen. The bon.
gentleman concluded by moving, as an instruction to the
committee, " That they have power to limit the operations
of the bill to those persons whose guilt has been proved
before committees of this house; and to make provision
that all persons who have been proved before such com-
mittees to have been guilty of giving or receiving bribes at
the elections of members of parliament for the borough of
Liverpool, shall be rendered incapable of voting at any
future election for that borough."
Mr. BENETT said that the motion of the hon. member
would, if carried, make his (Mr. Benett's) bill an ex post
facto measure. It would have a retrospective effect. The
course which that house had invariably adopted in all
cases of a similar kind was, that if a majority of the electors
were proved guilty of bribery, the whole should be deprived
of the elective franchise. If the hon. member's proposed
instruction to the committee should be agreed to, the object
of his (Mr. Benett's) bill would be totally defeated.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY would support the motion.
He thought the Reform Bill bad been meant as an act of
amnesty. As the great majority of the electors bad
exercised the franchise purely, be conceived that they ought
not to be punished with those who had been found guilty
of bribery.
Colonel WILLIAMS was understood to vote against
the proposed instructions, as he considered they would
have an unjust operation.
Lord SANDON would oppose the suggested modifica-
tion as strenuously as the bill itself, as be felt that both the
one and the other were unjust.
Dr. NICHOLL thought the motion of the hon. mem.
her for Newcastle an improvement on the bill, and he
should therefore support it.
Mr. GLADSTONE also supported the motion.
The house then divided, when there appeared—

For the Motion
Against it
Majority 92
On re-entering the gallery, we found Lord GEORGE
BENTINCK addressing the house. His lord,hip had a
motion to make on the present subject, by which he in-
tended to include in iLe proposed punishment many
individuals who would otherwise escape, and at the same

. -
time to rescue from unmerited punishment a number of
individuals who could by no possibility have been guilty of
the crimes to be punished. The latter parties consisted
of the 870 freemen, who had become such since the pe-
icy! of the commission of the ..cis of hi ihery now to be
punished. Those whom he wished to include in the pu-
nishment were in number '756, mostly rich individuals,
and who but for this motion would be screened from the
consequences of the bill. These consisted of the 166
persons calling themselves captains-lieutenant, or canvas-
sers at the election in 1830 ; the forty individuals who
had compos.d the committees on both sides at the same
election; and the 550 ten pound householders who had
been guilty of bribery and corruption on that occasion, at
which it was proved by the evidence of one Joseph Myers
that a sum of not less than forty-three thousand pounds
(as we understood) was expended in bribery. The evidence
of Mr. Pennington clearly showed that corruption pre-
prevailed among the higher classes to a very considerable
extent. The noble lord then referred to the case of Sef-
ton, of which mention bad been made before, and asked
whether persons so conscien'ious as he were to be disfran-
chised, while the captains-lieutenant and canvassers were
to go unscathed ?—(Hear, heir.) The displeasure of that
house should visit the splendid palace and gilded mansion
as well as the bumble roof of the poorer class of offen•
dere, and if one were stamped with disgrace, let the others
also he visited with the stigma of corruption.—(Cheers.)
The result of the clause which he proposed would be to
spare the franchise to 1,195 electors. The bill would dis-
franchise 4,627, while the clause he proposed would have
the effect of reducing the disfranchisement to 3,432. He
would move that the clause, as it now stood, be omitted,
and that the committee he instructed to provide, f' That

uo rerson who shall have become a burgess or freeman of
the said borough of Liverpool prior to the Ist of Dec. m •
ber, 1830, shall, either as such burgess, or such freeman,
or in right of any other franchise whatever, vote, or be
entitled to vote, in the election of a member or members

to serve in the present, or any future parliament for the
said borough."
Mr. HODGSON made some observations which we
could net collect.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL had intended to propose a
similar motion, but it had been shown to him that there
was a lik-lihood the pressing of this clause would endanger
the bill in the other house. With this conviction he would
request the noble lord to withdraw the instruction.
Mr. BENETT regretted that the noble lord, in moving
his instruction, (lid not go higher, and try and reach the
source from whence the money came, which caused the
corruption. He wished the noble lord had reached the
head.

An HoN. MEMBER. tweed with the noble lord, that
there should not be one law for the rich and another for
the pour, and yet some hard cases would occur under the
instruction moved by the noble lord. There was'one fact
stated, amid the corruption of the Liverpool election, in
the conduct of Mr. Gates, which in a great measure re-
deemed the open bribery. That gentleman thought it his
duty, in the face of the people and the candidates, to
state that, where such open and unblushing corruption
was practised, he should not vote on either side. It would
he hard on him, and others similarly circumstanced, to
be excluded from the franchise.
Lord SANDON observed, that 854 persons, who had
not been bribed, were passed over.
Mr. R. MASON said there was no evidence that 854
persons had not been bribed.
Lord SANDON replied, that as this was a question
of facts, be would leave it to the experience of the house
to judge who was likely to be most cautious in snaking as-
sertions, he or the hon. member.

Mr. WASON—I will ask the noble lord to point to
that page in the evidence which states that 851. freemen
were not bribed ; and if the noble lord cannot point to it
I must say that the insinuation is such as no honourable
man should have made.

The V SPEAKER—I am sure the hon. member does
not mean to express what his language implies; and I call
upon him to explain what he meant by the term in-
sinuation.

Mr. WASON.—I throw myself on the tome. The in.