The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-07 00:00:00

necessary effect of investigating the allegations before a
Select Committee, where neither the examiners nor the
examined would be upon oath ? He would take upon
himself to say that the Committee would be so entirely
confused by the complicated and contradictory statements
which would be thus made before them, that they would
be utterly unable to fulfil their judicial duties. Or suppose
even that this Select Committee did come to a judgment,
and it were in favour of the petitioners, would this House
consent to disfranchise such a body of freemen on mere
statements not given on oath ? Would they not insist
upon having the whole case thoroughly sifted and re-
investigated before them. Would they not summon the
petitioners, witnesses, and counsel to the bar of the House?
If they did so, the expense and delay which would be the
result would be dreadful ; and he need only refer to the
trouble and expense which had attended the investigation
of the East Retford case. One great branch of bribery
and corruption—the grants of appointments—had been
altogether knocked on the head. For himself be could
truly state, that during the whole time of his being a
Member for that city, he had not had a single appointment
to give away. He denied that any case had been made
out for gjanting the prayer of the petition for psrmi ting
an investigition which would cost the country an enor•
mous suni—not much under 8 or 10,0001—and would
occasion very crest delay in public business. He implored
the Government, by their sense of duty, to recollect the
immensity of business they had to transact this session—
to recollect what time thy would require for the discus-
sion of the imp irtant question last night before the House.
Mr. WASON was in favour of the appointment of the
Committee. It deemed to him that the opposition to it
was an opposition to justice—was a shield to corruption.
The whole aim of the petitioners was against the atrocious
system. The Hon. Member then related a case wherein,
on a presentment made by the Grand Jury of Liverpool
against bribery and corruption .practised at the election of
the Mayor, the magistracy had directed their power
against two poor men who had foolishly allowed them-
selves to be bribed into going up to vote twice. These
two ignorant men were disfranchised for this offence.
Here were these poor men punished for an offence by the
very magistrates by whom they had been corrupted into
the commission of that offence. The Hon. Member then
detailed the various circumstances of the several elections
at Liverpool since 1830, which he said fully proved the
grossest bribery and corruption. in that city. He particu-
larly 'dWelt upon the fact, that after the election of 1831,
when the present Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. J. J.
Denison) who had been selected as representative both
by that county and by Liverpool—when that Hon. Mem-
ber made his choice for the former representation, there
was a vacancy for Liverpool, and the House of Commons
decidedly refused to issue a new writ, on the ground of
gross corruption having been proved as existing at the
previous election.—(Hear.) Indeed the Noble Lord, he
must say, was now in that House purely by the influence
of bribery and corruption.—(oh, oh.)
Mr. O'CONNELL thought the House could not avoid
this inquiry. If the allegations made by the petitioners
were true, it was essential that justice should be done to
the delinquents. If unfounded, it was due to the cha-
racter of the inhabitants of Liverpool to have the asper-
sions cleared up. It was clear, however, on the face of it,
from the incontrovertible facts stated on oath before the
Committee of 1830, and contained in their report, and
from other evidence adduced, that the most unblushing
bribery was carried on at Liverpool, from the lowest in-
habitant to the highest magistrate. The facts stated in
the report, too, had been fully borne out by the Noble
Lord (Sandon) in a letter from the Rev. W. Sheppard,
confessing that he had been obliged to have recourse to
bribery to support his political opinions. It was notorious
that the name of freeman of Liverpool was synonimous
with bribery and corruption. Liverpool was only a mass
of corruption as a whole, but there were cycles of corrup-
tion. An Hon. Member had said, " Let the corrupters
be punished." So he would say too, but let the cor-
rupted be punished as well. He regretted to hear the
speech of the Noble Lord (Sandon). He could not
think of it but as throwing a shield over corruption--as
protecting the offence, and encouraging the offenders.
There was no imputation against the Noble Lord ; his
purity was perfectly established. He should support the
petition.
Lord W. LENNOX regretted extremely that the Hon.
Member for Wilts had felt it his duty to have again
brought forward this question. He thought the valuable
time of the House could be better employed than by raking
up tbe grievances of 1830. He would oppose the motion,
because he felt it was an act of injustice to punish the in-
nocent for the guilty, and by this measure 4,964 persons,
who have never offended, would be disfranchised. In con•
elusion, he would merely add, that he would yield to no
man in his desire for purity of election ; he was happy
that the Reform `Bill had worked so well in that respect.
Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY opposed the motion.

Mr. P. THOMSON said, the question was whether—a

statement having been made of a case of gross corruption
existing in a certain borough—it was not the duty of the
House to appoint a Committee to inquire if that state-
ment could be substantiated? On such a subject, it was
no answer to the demand for inquiry, to say that the time
was gone by. It was the duty of the House to preserve
the purity of the election of its Members ; and therefore it
was its duty to inquire into all cases of alleged gross
corruption.
Mr. HUME supported the motion. -The House was
bound to purify itself, and to keep elections pure. Such a
case as this was seldom brought before it; and when it
was said, why did not the parties go to an election com-
mittee? he answered that the expense prevented them. He
hoped the House would interfere, and put an end to
bribery whenever it occurred. He wished to ask the
Noble Lord if be meant to say tbat the whole expense of
the election was only 1,4001. ?
Lord SANDON was understood to say, Yes ; with 801.
for the hustings.
Mr. HUSlE—Then he must say that was impossible.
—(Oh, oh, Hear, hear.) As regarded the Noble Lord,
he had no doubt that the Noble Lord was correct ; but it

was impossible that the election could have been carried
for that sutn.—(Flear, bear.) They were bound to have
an inquiry, such as that now proposed, after every alleged
ease'of corruption ; and he, there!ore, should vote for the
Committee.

Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY reminded the House, that
during the discussions' on the Reform Bill, it was proposed
ro disfranchise the freemen, and it was with much re-
luctance that be consented to abandon that plan. But
the Reform Act having been pas.ed, and the freemen be-
ing allowed to remain, he regarded that Act as a general
amnesty for all alleged corruption in the freemen previous
to it. He therefore, would never refer anything which had
happened previous.to that Act to a Committee of Inquiry.
He maintained that at the laid election, and since that in-
quiry, no corruption had been proved against the freemen
of Liverpool. It had been alleged, but not proved.
An Horr. MEMBER, name unknown, was opposed to
the appointment of a Select Committee.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that from the difficulties
and expenses that beset the investigation of elections, it

would be utterly impossible to prevent bribery and corrup-
tion, unless the House resumed its ancient inquisitorial
power.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The most scanda-
lous Liverpool election on record, was that of 1831. He
would, therefore; support the motion for a Select Commit-

tee, but would postpone the appointment of its members
to a future'da, and would then vote for selecting them by
ballot.

Lord SANDON had no objection to that course, if the
Committee should be impartially appointed.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought that the elec-
tion of 1880 should not be drawn into a precedent. They
should allow a locus penittntice to offenders. He thought,
however, that the Committee should be instructed to
inquire into the proceedings of the last election; and that,
should bribery and corruption be found to have prevailed
then, the whole question, including the practices in
1880, should he probed to the bottom. In his opinio❑
the argument, that at the utmost no more than 1,430
persons would be punished, was exceedingly futile.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, the manner of the Hon.
Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon) seemed so fair and
handsome, that he thought the first inquiry should refer
to the last election.

Colonel WILLIAMS would make no opposition to the
motion, but thought its effact would be to di,fraochise him-

self. The last election had witnessed bribery, merely
that consistency of character might be preserved.
Mr. SHEIL was proceeding to make some observations
on the prop,iety of inquiring into the last election, when
Lord SANDON bad no objection to that course.
Mr. SHEIL then quoted the Grampound case, and said
that the Committee had recommended the disfranchise-

went of the borough, not on account of any bribery at the
election immediately preceding, hut that which had been
practised at former ones. That was an important prin-
ciple ; but, moreover, it was fully confirmed and established
by the similar case of East Retford.

Lord ALTHORP add the House was agreed as to the
propriety of examining the last election proceedings ; but
he thought the Committee should be instructed not to con-
fine its inquiries to that alone.—(Hear, hear.) . If the
place should be found free from bribery for the last three
tlections—particularly taking into account the late infusion
of houbebeiders—he thought the case should proceed no
further ; but if bribery had been employed at .tlie last