The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-20 00:00:00

~.

1..
b4"l/4
%II

,

fling the remainder, which went to s2t..na the limits, and one occasion by the Cirraud Turf. An aMbassidor to the
Turkish court tomplairra tia idle Or:-... l
snored an ~menriment actorarbg,ly.- L''
' ark that one of
Mr. BERNAL ca?rl the argument of the right him, ha_ his snentryinen 'aid her.',' l':.aurdered, and satisfaction was
ronet was entirely ?minded on the sufficiency of material deManded for the injury. The Grand Turk, having com-
for a resnecto.le constituency which might et 11l be found irintar&'ied the complaint to his bashaws and satraps,
within tlr. old limits of the borough, in conformity sollil decided that satisfaction must be given, whereupon
the Pr'inciple established by the Reform Bill, New he he ordered that twenty of his subjects should be put to
(l r. Bernal) cared very little indeed f:';'e that principle. death. Accordingly that number was seised, brought
He had never an coppottunity,feera the situation which he before him, and executed, but instead of taking only those
filled, of taking any part in the discussions on that question, who had been the offenders, the first twenty persons that
and his course of action Would not he bound by it. He could be found were pounced upon, and were the parties
did not think, if Ire might be allowed to express his opinion, doomed.—(Hear, and a laugh.) Such was the principle
that the principle of the Reform Bill, which had been No now to be acted upon ; a certain number were to be sacri-
ofen alluded to, possessed any beauty whatever. He ficed whether guilty or not, and his bon. friend was, on
thought it much too limited—(Hear)s—and wished it to this occasion, the Grand Turk.—(Laughter.) One absur-
have been much increased—so much so, that no borough dity of the measure was, that it applied to many persons
should have a constituency of less than 1,000 or 1,200 who did not exist. Many (said his lordship) have died—
voters.—(Cheers.) There might be disadvantages in many have gone, God knows where.—(Laughter.)
such large constituencies, but he really thought, if a balance Mr. H. HUGHES made a few remarks that were not
";ere struck, that the advantages would lie found greatly distinctly heard in the gallery.
to predominate. Now he begged to remind the right hon. Mr. PHILLIPS considered it his painful duty to give
la ironet that the Reform Bill contemplated a much larger his concurrence to the bill. He wished justice could he
constituency for Hertford than it really had—a constitu- made to reach those persons who were in the better classes
ency of not lees than 700. The objecti. las of the right of life.
hon. baronet to the extension of the limits to agricultural Mr. LABOUCHERE gave his cordial vote against the
districts were, he begged to say, not tenable. It really third reading.—(Cheers.)
appeared to him (Mr. Bernal) as if there were some private Mr. GLADSTONE said that Mr. Bolton Lad, in a
and reserved reason for the course which was pursued ca nsoat handsome manner, contributed 10,0001. towards the
the present occasion.—(Loud cheers.) Really, when he expenses of one of the candidates.—(Hear.) It was a
heard such frequent use of the words St punish," and pure act of compassion.—(A laugh and cheers.) " Hon.
" swamping," it drove him to the absolute necessity of Members might laugh, but they ought to be able to dis-
denying that there was any intention or desire to do either tinguish between contributing 10,0001. as election ex-
the one or tlae other. He felt it to be his duty to support penses and the giving of that sum after the election had
the bill at it at present stood, and not give up any one of ceased, as private assistance to a party who had suffered
its provisions.—(Hear, hear.) tnaterially. He contended that there was nothing before
Mr. TENNYSON strongly objected to the planof add• the house of formal proof of habitual corruption. There
ing large districts to a borough, out of which there might was another strong point to be urged, and it was, that,
be made an independent constituency. He thought this, even though the proposed remedy were a good one, it was
notwithstanding that the hon. member for Rochester held now unnecessary, as the evil was already cured. It seemed
at different opinion. He had no personal object to attain, as if this bill aimed at the franchise of the freemen gene-
He should be ashamed of himself if such could by an possi. rally, under cover of this peculiar case; and it should be
taility influence his decision. If out of the householders remembered in this discussion, that, in the election of
of Hertford, 520 householders could be found, he felt him- 1830, there were peculiar circumstances of mitigation
self justified in the view which he had taken. The coin- applying to the poor electors.
mittee said there were 414 exclusive of the freemen— Mr. WOOD should support the bill.
(Hear, hear)—therefore every object could be attained Mr. BAINES also urged the grossness and extent of the
without recurring to the last and extremest of measur s,— corruption, and said that an election at Liverpool was not
(Hear, hear.) Many constituencies were less than 300. considered as an occasion for the exercise of the franchise,
Tavistock and Richmond did not even approach to that but rather as a carnival for the most shameless and licen-
number. Why, then, should the committee suppose that tious bribery.
the constituency of Hertford could not furnish an adequate Dr. NICHOLL said, an amendment would be proposed
portion of voters? He should further rest his objection for the purpose of making a distinction between the inno-

on another and an important point for the consideration
of the committee. The addition of a large agricultural
constituency would defeat the spirit of the Reform Bill.—
(Hear, hear.) He should therefore oppose it, if for no
other reason than because it would tend to destroy a prin-
ciple to which the House of Commons had with every
solemnity pledged itself.--(Hear.)
Mr. ROBERT STEWARI' said the first clause of the
bill was just, but the second ought to be expunged.
Mr. BERNAL reiterated his former opinions. The
addition proposed to be added was only at much as was
essential to purify the great and glaring corruption which
it was admitted bad existed in the borough. Eleven
hundred were not too many for a new county member.
Me. WARD observed that ample informa+ion was
before the committee that the present constituency of
Hertford was corrupt, and required purification.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE said, if the borough were
extended it would strike at the entire system raised by the
Reform Bill, for unless the practice were Rude general the
spirit of that measure would be violated. Five hundred
'householders remain ; ought their interests to be °Teri°. ked ?
Tavistock and Richmond had not each more than 247
hruseholders, still they would have members; white
Hertford would be made to form, in returning a repre-
sentative, no more thin one-twelfth of the entire county.
Was that the way, be would ask, they should place the
princip.l town of the shire in ? Blackburn had only 626
householders, still they had two members, by the report

cent and the guilty, and if the House would not receive
it, they should divide on the bill.
The amendment was then put, and negatived without
a division.
On the question that the bill be now read a third time,
Mr. BETHELL (we believe) moved, as an amendment,
that the words from " or hereafter" be omitted.
Mr. JAMES seconded the amendment.
On the question being put, to leave out the words from
" or hereafter,"
Dr. NICHOLL supported the amendment. It would
be unfair to deprive the children of their franchise, be-
cause of an alleged abuse by their parents.
Mr. BAINES replied; the childr, n who were dispos-
sessed by the disfranchisement of Grampound, might, on
the same principle, assert a similar right.
Sir R. PEEL would not object to any punishment with
which proved bribery might be visited; but to make the
example valuable and effective, the house should take care
that it was governed by justice.—(Hear.) Ile did not
yet despair that justice would be dune ; but if the bill
contained a measure of gross and flagrant injustice, he
wou'd oppose it to the last, rather than suffer its enact-
ment to stand an indelible disgrace to that house. Let
the facts of the case be stated. There were rich and poor
voters in Liverpool. Wren the election came on, temp-
tations were held out to the poor men possessed of the
franchise, which they found it difficult, if not impossible,
to resist. The poor men were early caught by these

of the Commissioners; yet Hertford would have a larger
constituency, and they would all but disfranchise it. The
influence of property was spoken of in the latter town.
Ought they to forget that in Huddersfield all the houses
but one belonged to a single individual ? yet Huddersfield
_ _

tempt,tions, and bartered their votes for sums of 51. The
rich voters, who were not pressed by their necessities,
and better acquainted with the artifices of contested elec-
tions, held bark for better prices, until the increased
bribe amounted to 410/. Where was the difference, or

was not impeached. The hon. and gallant member nest
proceeded to allude to Kendal and Newry, and concluded by
saying that a regard for the consistency of their proceed.
ings out of doors should make them pause in punishing
Hertford, when the former town escaped the rigour of
the law.

rather, in a moral point of view, was not the delinquency
of the rich man greater than that of the poor elector ?
(Cheers.) Did that house visit the guilt of the rich
elector with a greater degree of punishment proportioned
to the greater guilt? No ; for whilst the bill deprived
the poor man of his franchise, it permitted it to the rich,

Mr. O'REILLY declared Newry never returned a Whig
Member. They were acting in a legislative as well as in

and said we will possess you of the privilege in another
way.—(Loud cheers.) This was a dangerous proceeding.

a judicial capacity, and he considered they ought to pro-
ceed directly in the cow se which the justice of the cave
demanded. He was sitting in that house in his legislative
capacity, and in that capacity would vote for the motion.
Mr. GUEST supported the atnendment.
Mr. O'CONNELL would support the motion.
Mr. WALTER said there ought to be some uniform
practice followed by the house in cares like the present.
Every one who had attended election committees must
have been struck with the attempts made to mystify the

A reference had been made to Grampound, but it was one
which would not hold, for there the franchise had been
altogether removed ; hut having been left in Liverpool,
core should be taken to pres.rve it to those who had not
abused it.
Lord JOHN RUSSEEL said, that a complete case of
corruption had been proved against the Liverpool freemen,
:and it was not a sufficient objection to their disfranchise-
ment that the Reform Bill had pres,rved the franchise to
the fret men as a class. The first Reform Bill proposed to

subject of bribery at elections. Ile (Mr. Walter) had
often been surprised at the ingenuity evinced by lawyers to
conceal every case of agency.
The cotnmittee then divided—
For the motion
For the amendment
Majority
Clause 4 of the bill was then agreed to.
Mr. BERNAL proposed the introduction of a new
clause, to the effect that no new wt it be issued until three
months after the passing of the bill, in order that sufficient
time be allowed for the registration of the electors, agree-
ably to the provisions of the Reform Act.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said it was quite irregular to in-
troduce clauses into the bill in the manner proposed by
the bon. member.
Mr. BERNAL begged to say that the clause in ques-
tion was substantially the same as one introduced into the
bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of Warwick.
Mr. GOULBURN complained that such clauses were
introduced into the body of the bill.
Mr. I3ERNAL—The clauses now proposed only refer
to the machinery of the election; they do not introduce
any new principle into the bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—The clauses proposed would
multiply the body of the bill three-fold. 'f he bill ought,
therefore, to be re.committed.
Mr. BERNAL repeated the remark lie had already
made.
Sir HENRY 'WILLOUGHBY thought the additional
matter ought to be introduced into the body of the bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY maintained that the new clauses
aught to he introduced into the body of the bill. They
involved no new principle whatever, but merely formed a
part of the machinery of the bill.
After a few words from 311.. HALCOMI and Mr.
WYNN, the clause was agreed to.
Ti,e remaining clauses were then agreed to.
The house resumed.
The CHAIRMAN brought up the report of the bill
amidst loud cheers.
To be taken into further consideration on Monday next.
Mr. O'CONNELL postponed the second reading of the
Liberty of the Press Bill till Wednesday, the 17th of April.
LIVERPOOL FREEMEN BILL.
Lord SANDON, before the house proceeded to the
further discussion of this bill, begged to take the oppor-
tunity of presenting four petitions against it, with the pre-
senting of which lie had been intrusted. The first was
from a number of freemen in Liverpool, praying the house
not to deprive them of their franchise. The next was
from the sons of freemen, praying not to be deprived of a
right to which they were entitled, as they had not been
in way participatory in the bribery which had ben prac-
tised. The third petition was from apprentices in Liver-
pool, who would be deprived by this bill of their
rights as burgesses, though they had not been impli•
cated in any way in the offence complained ot. The
fourth petition was from 7,400 inhabitants of Liverpool,
praying the bill might not pass into a law. The last pe-
tition was signed by from 1,800 to 2,000 hankers, trier.
chants, brokers, and others of the most influential re.
spectable individuals in the place.
Mr. BENETT, in rising to move the third reading
of the Liverpool Freemen Bill, said it would ill become
him to trouble the house with a speech on a subject now
so trite to it.
Lord SANDON opposed the motion. The freemen of
Liverpool had done nothing to merit so heavy a punish-
ment, and he could not help saying, that it was very hard
tint a man like himself, who so abhorred every species of
bribery and corruption, or even treating, should thus
stand nightly in:as distressing a situation as if he bad bribed
to the utmost. Nor was it less hard to hear his consti •
tuency, than whom he believed there was no purer, thus
overwhelmed with unmerited vituperation. He thought
the Bill a most unjustifiable ow, and he should therefore
move " that it be read a third time that day six months."
Sir H. WILLOUGIIBY seconded the amendment.
Lord G. BENTINCK should oppose the bill, because
made poverty a crime. It was a measure of the most
monstrous injustice and of the grossest tyranny.—(Hear.)
Of the poor, it punished two to secure the punishment ot
one; of the rich, it screened two, to save one.—(Hear.)
The measure of justice to be dealt out in this case reminded
him of the sort of justice said to have been administered on

disfranchise the freemen altogether; but in consequence of
its being objected that by so doing the house would in effect
he disfranchising the poor voters of different boroughs,
they were permitted to retain their privilege. But the
preservation of their rights as a general class could
not be fairly adduced as an argument adainst a specific
case of corruption.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—There was no corruption at the
las election.—(Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—In point of fact the freemen,
during the last two or three elections, might be consi-
dered as voting under the influence of fear of the threat-
ened punishment of disfranchisement. lie could, there.
fore, give them no credit for polity on that account.—
(Hear, hear.) Certainly many of those who had been
guilty of brio iry and corruption would escape punish-
ment, as they would be entitled to vote under the 101.
franchise. So far the bill was imperfect ; and he would
be perfectly reddy to vote for any clause or any bill which
would have the effect of punishing those whose guilt had
been satisfactorily established.—(Hear, hear.) It cer
tainly was hard that the innocent should suffer for the
guilty ; but whe❑ the extent of corruption amongst that
class of voters was so great, complete disfranchisement
w.. 5 the only remedy.—(Hear.)
Lord SANDON thought the noble lord supported
this bill on very strange and inconsistent grounds. He
admitted that the bill did too little and too much—
that it did not punish the guilty, and that it did punish
the innocent, and yet the noble lord gave it his support.
—(Hear, hear.) As to the argument that the recent pu-
rity of the Liverpool freemen arose out of fear of punish-
ment, it was most extraordinary. It would have become
the lips of Judge Jefferies—that bated Judge could not
have done more in endeavouring to convict an innocent
man, than have said to him, " I know you are innocent,
but you have abstained final guilt merely through fear
of being tried at my tau, and therefore you'ought to be
convicted and punished."—(Hear.)
After a few words from Mr•. HODGSON,
Mr. SPRING RICE said, that if any means could be
pointed out of saving the innocent or of effectually pu•
wishing the guilty, he was sure that no man in that
house would object to it, whether the parties to he dis-
franchised were rich or poor, freemen or householders.—
(Hear, hear.) But the effect of the amendment proposed
was not to punish the guilty, but to perpetuate the fran-
chise of the freemen of Liverpool. So far, therefore, as
that argument went, it did not bear upon the question.
Anxious as he was that all who hail given or taken the
wages of corruption should be completely disfranchised,
be could not advise his hon. friend to encumber his bill
with a clause of pains and penalties, pointing out 2,600
individuals by name.—(Hear, bear.) The amendment
would have the effect of perpetuating a franchise which
had proved to be a hot-bed of corruption.—(Cheers.) He
would not, even at the risk of withholding the franchise
from a few innocent men, forbear to take advantage of
the opportunity of putting an end for ever to the gross
system of corruption. He was willing to treat the fran-
chise as in some measure an individual privilege, but he
could not forget that it was also a public trust—and
when the former could not be preserved without violating
the latter, he felt that he had oily one course to adopt.
Sir R. PEEL and Mr. S. RICE explained.
Mr. CIOULBOURN supported the amendment.
Mr. NICHOLL proposed another amendment as fol-
lows :—" Save such freemen as have been admitted since
the Ist of December, 1830,
_and such persons as are en-
titled to their freedom, and have inchoate rights thereto."
The SPEAKER observed that the hon. member could
not propose that amendment until the one already before
the house had been disposed of.
Mr. BENETT said, that three years ago, which was
the first time that he had brought in the bill, it bad re-
ceived the support of many hon. gentlemen who now
opposed it. He had withdrawn it at the end of the ses-
sion, at the request of the right hon baronet, who had
pledged himself to support it at a subsequent period.
The house then divided—
For the Amendment 63
Against it 120
Majority
On our return we found Mr HODGSON on his legs,
speaking to the amendment proposed by Mr. Nicholl,