The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-02 00:00:00

reading of the Liverpool Freemen's Disfranchisement Bill;
and at the same time suggested that the same system
should be adopted in regard to this bill which had been
followed in the Warwick Borough Bill ; namely, that
evidence be heard at the bar.
The Earl of ELDON said, that if witnesses were to be
examined merely for the purpose of adducing reasons for
the passing this bill, they might as well have walked out
of the house at once. He (Lord Eldon) had known the
country long, and he could say, from his experience, that
Ithe subjects of this country had the greatest reliance on the
decision of this house of parliament ; and by its conduct
both in its legislative and judicial capacity it had frequently
been the means of saving the constitution, by the exercise
of its privileges. If he were to express an opinion upon
this bill—and he should not do so at any great length—he
should beg the attention of their lordships to what the bill,
which they were now called on to read a second time, was.
It was this, that in 1834 it was found out (for he supposed
that it had not, and could not be found out before, or there
would have been a bill of the same kind sooner)—it was
found out that some freemen of Liverpool, previous to the
passing of the Reform Bill, had been corrupt, and be-
cause those few freemen had been corrupt, they were
called on to disfranchise the whole of the freemen
of Liverpool, innocent as well as guilty. (Hear.) If
the intention of the bill was merely to disfranchise the
freemen made since the Reform Bill, he could understand

it ; but here they were called on to disfranchise all, the in-
nocent as well the guilty ; nay, more, they were called on
to go further than he believed had ever been gone before,
for the bill .be/fore them proposed to enact that all future
freemen should be disfranchised. That such a bill had
ever before been brought before parliament he did not be-
lieve. He was an old man, and it might perhaps be said,
was too fond of the institutions of his country, but he re-
collected that Lord Mansfield, when Chief Justice of the
Court of King's Bench, said that all new laws on the sub-
ject of bribery were useless, because the common law was
sufficient to overtake those guilty of that offence.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE, instead of directly negativing
the motion, would content himself with moving that the
evidence to Ile adduced should be confined to a certain
period of time. In his opinion, there never was a bill
brought before their lordships in which such injustice was
done as in that now before them. In 1830 an election
took place at Liverpool, owing to the lamented death of 1
Mr. Huskisson, and he was free to own that it had been
then proved that corruption did exist among the freemen.
But that was previous to the Reform Bill, by which pre-
cisely the same remedy was applied to the corruption
of Liverpool which was applied to other boroughs.
They ought, therefore, not to ask to consider any
corruption which might have existed previous to the
Reform Bill. The reform increased the constituency of
Liverpool fourfold. It increased it from 4,000 to 10,000
voters. He begged also to remind their lordships, that the
first Reform Bill confirmed all the freemen in their rights for
their then existing lives, but that afterwards a change was
made, and not only those who then enjoyed the right,
but all those who might acquire their freedom hereafter,
either by birth or servitude, were also confirmed in their
rights. Under the operation of the Reform Act, therefore,
the rights of the freemen of Liverpool were confirmed to
them, and it was a gross injustice that they should now be
deprived of it for acts of corruption previous to the passing of
that bill. In his opinion it required subsequent acts of cor-
ruption to incur a bill of pains and penalties. It was stated
in the bill that the electors, subsequent to 1830 displayed
less bribery and corruption in consequence of the suspension
of the writ, which was stated to have had a most salutary
effect ; and from that fact, which he did not dispute, it was
argued the disfranchisement should take place. He (Lord
W.) did not understand the fairness of such a conclusion.
The noble baron next proceeded to read the report of the
committee, and having come to that part which related
to the corruption of freemen at the election of the mayor
and bailiffs of the borough, said that he considered that that
had not been a question for the committee of the Lower
House to entertain. There was a municipal commission ap-
pointed, and before it such charges should have been investi-
gated. It had been out of the committee's province—they
ought not to have approached it. But that was not the
principal objection to the bill ; it would disfranchise the
poor man—it would not approach the rich one. (Hear.)
The briber would escape, but the bribed would suffer. He
who had no temptation to err would rejoice in his impunity,
while he who had every incitement would be deprived of
that which he was solicited to sell. Would their lordships
call that justice? The rich disfranchised freeman would
fall back on his 101. qualification, whilst the poor man,
who had no holding, and who was less criminal, would find
all his rights forfeited. (Hear.) But the whole body of
freemen had not been bribed—far from it, How stood the
case ? In 1830Ve mitiaber .who had been ascertained to
have received bribes was 1,800, the number unbribed
1,748, who„with those since registered, by birth or servi-
tude—namely, 196, would form a numerous body of men,
who would be deprived of their inchoate rights for no
fault of theirs. The bill purported to take away the
franchise from 4,541 individuals, but the right of
voting for members of Parliament would be reserved
for those who had broken the law, but who would still
escape by moving the franchise of property. His (Lord
Wharncliffe's) feelings upon the Reform Bill were well
known. He never doubted of its ill effects, and his fears
had not been in a great measure unrealised. He at the
p resent moment, however, only asked the legislature to
let it stand as it was ; let them not take away rights which
that bill had guaranteed. Let the inquiry then be confined
to what had taken place since its passing, and if that were
acceded to, no case could be made out against Liverpool.
He (Lord Wharncliffe) would be the last man to stand up
to screen the guilty, but, in God's name, let them not go
back to other and ought-to-be-forgotten times. Much had
been done to punish ; the Reform Bill had plentifully cut
down ; let them respect what it had spared. Then as to
the corruption since 1830. Scarcely 481. had been ex-
pended ; why, if they would disfranchise for such a sum
being given away, he (Lord Wharncliffe) would undertake
for 2001. to disfranchise any town in the kingdom. The
noble lord then moved an amendment upon the origitial mo-
tion, that these words should be added, " that voting ac-
cording to the Act 2d William IV., c. 45, should be altered
and extended, and that the examination of witnesses should
not extend to acts done prior to the passing of that act."
Earl RADNOR considered he had a right to complain
of the course pursued by the noble lord (Wharncliffe).
He had considered, up to that moment, that the noble
lord would have opposed the second reading. He had
spoken to him that day on the subject, but he had not con-
descended to reveal his intentions. He now came down to
support the second reading, but that he would render the
inquiry narrow and confined in its limits. A great portion
of the noble lord's speech, too, was directed in vitupera-
tion of the House of Commons. Now he (Earl Radnor)
considered they had nothing to do with the House of Com-
mons ; they had only to confine themselves to the bill then
on their lordships' table. The noble lord must have been
in error respecting the proceedings attendant upon the
election of 1832. It had been stated that it would be a
great hardship upon the noble lord (Sandon), the mem-
ber of the borough, if they proceeded under Lord Gren-
ville's Act ; they therefore went forward under an act
passed some years previously, but that course was not sub-
sequently entirely agreed with. As to bribery, the noble
lord had stated there had been little or none during the
election of 1832. Why, one of the candidates on the first
day gave up the contest, because his voters would not come

to the poll unless they were paid. Had not that been
bribery? He would object to the proposition of the noble
lord.

The Duke of RIVIDIOND said a great portion of the
Liverpool freemen, it had been admitted, were bribed ; and
the ',only difficulty there was to encounter was to consider
who were the bribed parties. In 1830, acts of the grossest
and most flagitious bribery had taken place ; corruption
stalked about at noon day ; and the infamous scenes perpe-
trated could not be too much denounced. He would punish
the briber as well as the bribed. He would call evi-
dence to the bar to prove the corruption of the rich as well
as the poor, and he would rigorously (if not, indeed, more
so) deal with one as well as the other. The bribed were
not people of distinction. No, certainly not. He (the
Duke of Richmond) could find some excuse for the poor
man—for him borne down by poverty, perhaps with a large
family, and who had not money to pay his rent, taking the
wages of his corruption, when he found the gentleman
whom he had looked up to for example and protection his
tempter and his paymaster. Let every man be disfran-
chisedcorde
d"inhothberiabnendalosrovf iansfabmyribe. bribed, and let his name be re-
Lord WYNFORD concurred in the propriety of every
word which had fallen from the noble duke opposite. He
would vote for inquiry, but then let the inquiry be general
in its nature, and extensive in its details. He felt much
regret that he could not vote with his noble friend at that
side of the house for the carrying of the amendment which
he had proposed. The Reform Bill his noble friend had
strongly relied upon : now his opinions upon that bill were
also well known : it might have done good, but he was
sure it was never intended to act as a statute of limitation
against corruption. He would not agree to such a reading
of the bill. Evidence should be heard, and if the parties
were guilty the heaviest punishment should be inflicted.
He said on a former occasion, with reference to this very
town of Liverpool, that the qualification ought to have
been much higher than a ten.ponncl one : and in conclu-
sion, would' now only repeatwhat had been said by a mini-
ster of France on the occasion of introducing a bill for the
extension of the elective franchise, that it was perfectly
absurd to give votes to those who only wanted them in
order to sell them.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA should give his support to
the proposition of the noble earl opposite (Earl Radnor),
but would not, till he had heard the evidence, pledge him-
self to support the bill.
The Alarquis of SALISBURY should move that the
words " in the first instance" be inserted in the amend-
ment proposed by the noble lord near him (Wharncliffe).
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that among the
many misdeeds charged upon the borough of Liverpool,
some, he observed, were imputed to an occasion in which
he felt some little personal interest—the year 1812. But
he had not risen about that, but merely to observe, that
they should see clearly what they were about—they should
be careful of the difficulties they would have to encounter
if they determined to go into all former elections without
reference to later proceedings. The Reform Bill certainly
appeared to him a species of remedy for the abuses existing