The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-28 00:00:00

number of instances of bribery could nut justify the disfranchise-
ment of the borough—a number small indeed, as compared with
the number of cases proved in all other instances where the
house had interfered to such an extent. If the principle of
punishing treating to such an extent were to be established in
this instance, any person whatever might set aside any election
in the kingdom, and also stop the issuing of a new writ. He
contended that there was nothing illegal in a member's going
down in January to the place for which he had been elected,
and distributing money among his constituents, provided it was
not done under a previous promise to do so. It might be a very
good reason to bring in a bill to alter the law upon the-subject,
but until the law should be altered such a proceeding would not
be illegal.
The ATTORNEY. GENERAL said that in taking into considera-
tion the circumstances of this election, he felt it necessary to
consider that the object the house had in view when it passed
the reform bill was to prevent all bribery; and, taking this into
consideration, he should feel that he was acting derogatory to
the support he had himself given to that bill were he not to vote
for the present resolution. The object of the reform bill was to
secure the pure exercise of the elective franchise. He voted
for that bill in order to secure that result, and he regretted that
in the case of the borough of Hertford it had been defeated. If
bribery and corruption were proved before the committee to
have prevailed at Hertford, the house would disgrace itself by
disavowing the resolutions of the committee to that effect. He
contended that if the question were to be at all taken up by the
house, the course now proposed was the only one that could be
adopted; but at the same time he must say, that, as far as re-
garded his own opinion, he did not think this resolution strong
enough to meet the circumstances of the case. (Cheers from
the ministerial benches.) He would put it to the house whether
they were prepared to say that bribery and-treating at an elec-
tion did not deserve the serious consideration of Parliament?
He maintained that the house must entertain the resolution,
unless it was prepared to disgrace itself with the public, and
lose the public confidence.
Mr. P. PoLLocx insisted that the resolutions were both pre-
mature and unjust. There was nothing in the report to impli-
cate the late sitting members. All that the committee said was,
that it appeared that bribery and treating did prevail. They
did not affirm the fact. (Loud cheers of dissent from the mi-
nisterial side.) If, upon this resolution, it was intended to
found a general measure for the purpose of preventing the re-
currence of such acts of corruption in other places, he should
be ready to give it his cordial support; but he could not agree
to the principle of making a special example of Hertford.
Mr. GOULB URN would state the grounds which led him to
concur in this motion. His hon. friend opposite was too candid
and too honourable not to state openly to the house the
nature and objects of his motion. He distinctly understood
his hon. friend to state that, in the event of his present motion
being carried, the next step would be to appoint a committee to
inquire, not into the guilt of the accused, but how they were
to be punished. So that they had the indictment, and a call for
punishment, without that necessarilly intermediate step, the
trial of the parties accused. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) The
report of the Hertford Election committee simply was, That
it appears to this committee that bribery and treating prevailed
previously to and during the last election for the said borough
of Hertford." If it had been shown that bribery and corrup-
tion prevailed to any extent, then it would have been the duty
of the committee to recommend, as the NeWry Election coin-
' mittee did, that the house should desire that the Attorney-
General should proceed to prosecute the guilty !fatties. The
cases were analogous, and why should they depart from their
former usage ? It they did so in this case, they would be con-
demning the parties without a hearing. (Hear, and No, no.)
If he (Mr. G.) thought that bribery had extensively prevailed
at Hertford, he would willingly consent to place the accused
in a situation which would give them an opportunity of defend-
ing themselves, or of being punished, if guilty. But with the
evidence before him he could not consent to be a party to a
resolution, which was to be followed up by another which was
to disfranchise the borough, or swamp the franchise of its free-
holders by extending the right of voting over the adjoining
hundreds. (Cries of Question, question.) In conclusion he
would state, that he was determined to oppose the resolution of
his hon. and leered friend, on the grounds he had already stated.
Mr. BERNAL shortly replied; on a division, the numbers
were, . .

For the select committee
Against it
Majority
CARRICKFERGUS ELECTION.
__.

Mr. O'CONNELL said it was his intention to move for leave to
bring in a bill for the total disfranchisement of this borough.
It was in Antrim, whit') had six representatives—one-twentieth
of the representation of Ireland, and the total amount of the in-
habitants was 8,698. The influence on the electors hatl been
distributed between the familes of Donegal and Downshire ;
and, at the last election, he maintained that bribery was uni-
versal. It might be said that he ought to suggest how the fran-
chise should be disposed of if it were taken from Carrickfergus ;
but he would leave that part to the decision of the house. As
the constituency were of a different persuasion from his, he did
not wish to incur the imputation of party motives. He moved
that the house should agree with the committee in the resolu-
tion that the most gross and scandalous bribery had taken
place on both sides, at the late election for the town of Carrick-
fergus.
Mr. SHAW said he had presented a petition from a number of
the inhabitants of Carrickfergus, disclaiming bribery on their
parts. He admitted, however, that the honourable and learned
gentleman had made out a stroug prima facie case, and, as the
course which he took was a fair and candid one, he (Mr. Shaw)
should offer no opposition to it.
Sir R. BATESON said a petition bad been intrusted to him
from a part of the constituency of the town, who declared in the
most solemn manner that they had not been bribed at the last
election ; but that, because they had refused bribes, a conspi-
racy was now formed to deprive them of their hereditary rights.
Bribery would sooner be put a stop to if the punishment were
visited upon the bribers, and not the bribed. It was clear that
the town of Carrickfergus could not be so depraved as this ge-
neral imputation of bribery would argue, since the Judges had
for the last three years successively returned thanks for maiden
assizes.

Mr. E. TENNANT said he should not have opposed the dis-
franchisement of the freemen who had been bribed, but he
saw no sufficient grounds for the entire disfranchisement of the
borough. Mr. Legg, in his evidence, said he knew of no house-
holder having been bribed; and the agent of Sir A. Chichester
knew of only one.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that after the state-
ment of the honourable and learned member, it could not be
doubted that the bill ought to be introduced. He thought from
that statement that the bribery was so general that it would be
extremely difficult to leave any. part of the constituency that
would be pure. At the same time, while he gave his hearty
concurrence to the introduction of the Bill, he should reserve
to himself the right of considering, in common with the House,
whether justice might not be effected by a partial disfran-
chisement, if it should turn out that there was any class of
voters sufficient to form a constituency who had not been
bribed.

Mr. C. W. WYNN considered that there could be no doubt as
to the propriety of bringing in the Bill; but of course justice
required that the parties should have au opportunity of being
heard.

The resolution having been agreed to,
Mr. O'CONNELL moved to suspend the writ for the Burgesses
for the town of Carrickfergus until the lst of July next.
The hon. and learned Member then obtained leave to bring
in a bill to disfranchise the borough of Carrickfergus.
Mr. O'CoNNELL said that there was another branch of this
report, with respect to the delay which had taken place in pro-
ducing certain papers, to which he should feel it his duty to
call the attention of the house on Tuesday week.
The second reading of the Dramatic Performances Bill was
fixed for Thursday next.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
house adjourned at a quarter before two o'clock to Thursday
next.

LONDON GAZETTE.-FRIDAY, MAY 24.

BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED

.
William Bennett, of Lostoek, Lancashire, cotton-spinner.
Thomas llodgson, Manchester, tanner.
BANK IttiPTS.
- - - -

John Bagger (and not John Ilaggar, as before advertised,) late of
Brighton-place, Brixton-road, oilman.
James George Charles Chamberlain, Marlborough-road, Chelsea,
grocer.
Jarvis Palmer, Hampton-street,Walworth, fish•sauce manufacturer.
George Ross, St. Mary-axe, grocer.
Charles Thoroughgood, New Church-street, Lisson-grove,victualler.
James Eyre Watson' Bucklersbury, merchant.
James IloLnan, Holton Old Town, calenderer.
Stephen Hale Alonzo Marsh, Bristol, music-seller.
Joseph Winter, Stoke-under-llamdon, Somersetshire, glove-manu-
facturer.

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. Jones and G. Broune, Liverpool, morocco-dressers.—R.
M. D., and A. Manny, Liverpool, surgeons.—S. Sherlock and W. L.
Thompson, Liverpool, wine-merchants.—C. Butler and T. Maxfield,
Sheffield, haft and scale-pressers.—J. Saunders and F. Burghart, jun.,
Warwick-street, Golden-square, saddlers.—ll. M. Wrench and J.
Dodsworth, Regent-street, linen-drapers.—J. Yearsley and C. E.
Thomson, Ross, Herefordshire, surgeons.—J. Parker and J. Parker,
Harpurhey and Manchester, cotton-spinners.—J. Jackson, jun., and
J. Mountford, Tiverton, Cheshire, brick-makers.—E. Knapp, W. 11.
Earle, and W. W. Bulpett, Winchester, coal-merchants.--T. Jeffery
and J. Burrow, Allerton Bywater, Yorkshire, stone-bottle-manufac-
turers.—J. Angell and T. G. Angell, Norwich, curriers.—B. Hart and
L. Hart, Holywell-street, Strand, clothes-salesmen.—J. IVeaver and
B. P. Hander, Wolverhampton, chemists.—ll. Wilson and G. H. Cut-
ler, Dunster-court, Mincing-lane, wine-merchants,

DIVIDENDS.
June 18, J. Morley, Liverpool, merchant. —June 15, J. Bagley,
Liverpool, haberdasher.—June 3, W. Lushington, jun., Mark-lane,
merchant. —June 11, .1. Finney, Charlotte-street, Portland-place,
merchant. —June 14, C. Bray, Thcobald's-road, coach-maker.—June
17, T. Freethv, Acton, Middlesex, larpenter.—June 20, J. Cox and
' liclsch, 1.1,iw-court, Crotched-friars, merchants.—June 20, W.
Dickinson, Milk-street, warehouseman.—June 6, W. Wilmington
jun. Milbourn-port, Sumersethire, glove-manufacturer.—June 14,
C. ff. Wearing and W. Greenwood, St. Paul's Church-yard, mer-
chants.—June 6, W. Sangster, Holland-place, Lambeth, builder.—
June 15, R. Smith, Old City Chambers, merchant —June 17, J.
Ilberv, Doughty-street, merchant.—June 14, A. M. Pereira and H.
Castellain, Old Bethlem, merchants.—W. F. Fussell, Boltonsborough,
Sornersetshire, tanner.—June 15, J. Stadders, Burnley, Lancashire,
draper—June 17, E. Andrews, Worcester, bookseller—June 17, J.
Wilde, J. Bowden, T. Gartside, and Z. Mavall, Oldham, Lancashire,
cotton-spinners—June 19, W. Haywood, Birmingham, bookseller—
June 18, T. Cooper, Thatcham, Berkshire, coach-proprietor—June 18,
W. Emery, Bristol, corn-factor.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to the con-