The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-15 00:00:00

itself had been ultimately disfranchised. He did not think that
it was necessary to have counsel heard before the committee,
but he thought that if, on the report of this committee, a bill
were brought in with penal enactments, then the parties to be
punished by them might be heurd against such a bill by COUTI-
seI at the bar.

Lord SANDON said, that having agreed to the appointment of
a committee on a former night, he felt. himself precluded from
opposing the appointment of it now. He thought that, before
it was appointed, the house ought to know something of the
course of its proceedings. No rule had been laid down as to
the time of its meeting, as to whether the attendance of its mem-
bers should be compulsory, and day by day, as to the number
requisite to form a quorum and various other similar questions.
He thought that a tribunal constituted on this plan would be a
tribunal of iniquity. lie had been pointed out as one of the
nominees • but supposing that he were to assume that character,
how peculiar would be his situation. He would have to inves-
tigate a case in which his own conduct might be involved ; and
farther, he must defend one part of his constituents against the
attacks of another. Under these circumstances, he did not
think that he was a proper person to act as nominee on the oc-
casion. Who was to pay the expense of the inquiry ? Were
the funds of the corporation to be taxed for that purpose ? In
conclusion he entreated the house, before the committee should
be appointed, to chalk out the mode of proceeding which it was
to adopt.
The question on the amendment was then put and negatived
without a division.

On the original resolution being put,
Mr. C. W. WYNN observed that there was no penalty im-
posed for non-attendance.

Sir R. PEEL said it would be desirable to make a provision
for the case of any member of this committee who might* hap-
pen to be subsequently nominated on an election committee.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that members who stated that •they
had already served were excused from election committees;
that rule would apply to the case of a member of this Commit-
tee who should be nominated in the way mentioned by the
right hon. baronet.
rilhe resolution was agreed to.
Lord J. RUSSELL proposed Lord Sandon and Mr. Benett as
nominees.

Lord SANDON said, that at first. it was his intention to accept
the office of-nominee, but on consideration he thought it would
be better for him to decline the situation, unless the house in-
sisted on his acceptance of it. If counsel Were not to be heard
in this case, he thought it necessary that soma legal gentlemsdk
should be on the committee, and therefore wished to name a
learned-riieinber to serve.' He should propise The lion:-arid'
learned member for Cardiff (Mr. Nicholi) to serve on the Com-
mittee, which he would again designate as a scandalous and
iniquitous tribunal. (" Oh, oh !")
On the question that Mr. BENETT and Mr. Nienou. be no-
minees,

Mr. BENETT said that as the noble lord had declined to serve
on the committee, perhaps he ought to follow the noble lord's
example. However, if the house desired that he should serve
he was willing to do so, notwithstanding a legal gentleman had
been nominated on the other side. He was satisfied that the
fairness of the hon. and learned member would do away with
the imputation of partiality.
An hon. Member (name unknown) objected to having a law,
ver nominated on one side and not on the other. lie caw,
from a county that was lawyer ridden, and would, if possiW,
exclude all legal people from the committee. (Laughter.)
Mr. NictioLL, although he felt totally inadequate to the fluty
imposed on him, would not shrink from its performance t9' the
best of his ability, at whatever personal inconvenience to him-
self. At the same time, if the noble lord would consent to the
nomination being postponed till to-morrow, ("No, no,") it
would be the greatest possible relief to him. lie suggested tht:
postponement through a feeling of his own inadequacy ant
want of preparation, but was willing to yield to the wishes et
the house if it desired to proceed at once.
The resolution appointing Mr. Benett and Mr. Nicholl -hav-
ing been agreed to,
The ballot for 21 names (to be subsequently reduced to 13)
proceeded, and the following members were nominated :
Mr. A. Bannerman Lord Dudley C. Stuart
Hon. C. Langdale Mr. J. O'Connell
Mr. L. Oliphant Mr. J. Wedgwood
Mr. E. a,Hornby Mt. T. Gladstone
Mr. W. B. Brodie Mr. George Williams
Mr. R. A. Oswald Mr. E. B. Curteis
Mr. W. H. Hyett Mr. L. Fenton
Right Hon. C. P. Thomson Mr. W. Turner
Sir Harry Verney Mr. B. Handley
Mr. T. Bish Mr. J. Marshall
Mr. E. G. Barnard -

' Several members were excused on the ground of being-en-
gaged on election committees, or for other reasons. Lord
Althorp's name was called, but he excused himself on the
ground of public business. It also fell to the lot of the Speaker
to read his own name, which created a laugh. On the name of
Mr. Thomas Gladstone being announced,
Mr. R. WASOIV objected to that gentleman serving on the
committee, on the ground of his having been himself petitioned
against for bribery and corruption.
The SPEAKER said that it ill became the hon. member to
object to the nomination of the member for Portarlington,
unless he was prepared to follow up his remarks by a motion.
Did the hon. member mean to snake any motion?

Mr. WA SON having replied that~
hc did not, the matter
dropped.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from the mayor, aldermen,
bailiffs, and common council of Liverpool, praying that they
might be heard by counsel before the committee now sitting ui
defence of their corporate rights.

STAFFORD ELECTION.
Mr. ELLlcE.said he would endeavour, as shortly as possible,
to lay before the house the grounds on which he asked for leave
to bring in a bill " to indemnify certain persons who may give
evidence relative to corrupt practices at the late election for the
borough of Stafford." On the subject of the alleged corrup-
tion a petition had been
i
presented to that house. The gentle-
man who was especially nterested would not have been induced
to defend that petition unless he was enabled to state to the house
certain circumstances which had come to his knowledge, which
he hoped would lead the house to extend the inquiry with re-
spect to the practices at elections which had long prevailed at
Stafford, and would procure redress for the corruption which
had, it appeared, at all times prevailed in that borough. And
if the parties who it was intended should be examined - had not
protection given to them, it would be irnposible to arrive at any
investigation of the facts. At the last election for Stafford a
scene of such gross corruption occurred as few gentlemen,
even in that house, could conceive. He had a statement which
came from two parties who actually paid for the votes at that
election. The tickets which insured payment were double
sealed for plumpers, and single scaled for split votes. (Hear,
hear.) Tickets, such as he had described, were issued by some
persons at the poll, and were received by 524 voters out of 526,
who formed the majority at that election, and returned a mem-
ber to that house. (Hear, hear.) On one side of the ticket
there was the name of the party, and on the other the amount
agreed to be given for his vote. (Hear, hear.) Some of those
tickets he held in his hand, from which it would appear that
the price paid was from £4 to £l5 for each vote. (Hear, hear.)
When he stated this, he thought he had made out a case to
induce the house to institute some inq.uiry. into this matter.
(Hear, hear.) If they proceeded to an inquiry up stairs with-
out extending protection to those whom it would be necessary
to bring forward, he feared that they would not be able to pro-
cure the evidence of essential witnesses to substantiate the
alleged facts. In asking for a bill to indemnify witnesses he war
pursuing an unusual course. He believed there was but one
example of the kind. That was in the case of Lord Melville,
when this house sent up to the house of Lords a bill to indem-
nify certain witnesses, who where themselves connected with
the criminal acts that were the subject of impeachment.
the case of Grampound, East Iletford, and of some other places,
where circumstances transpired in the course of the 'inquiry
which demanded further information, that information was fiat
elicited, and acts of indemnity were afterwards passed. In
making this proposition, he could assure the house that his
object was not to cast reflections on any individual, or to ex-
pose any person to disagreeable consequences on account of
matters that occurred formerly. Upen these grounds he moved
for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. W. WYNN said undoubtedly this was an election poti-
tion, and if they entered into a discussion relative to what, as
described in it, had occurred at an election, he was quite sure
that a prejudice was likely to arise from adopting such a course,
He was decidedly friendly to the principle of the proposed bill
as a general measure, and he could not see any reason why that
principle should not extend to the borough of Liverpool, or any
other place, when a petition, on account of bribery at -omen
place, was presented. (Hear.)
• Mr. O'CONNELL said if there wore no general law to meet a
case of this kind, they ought undoubtedly to introduce a pairti-
cular law.

Mr. A. BARING said that others felt as much indignation-at
offences,of the nature described as the hon. and learned gentle-
man, who, if. report were true, was himself the greatest borough-
monger in that house. It seemed that some persons had been
guilty of serious mat-practices, and now they came forward,
their friends here, to screen themselves by the introduction 41-
a bill for that purpose. They ought, in his opinion, instead i.kc
(Continued to pass 261.)
•