The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-07-09 00:00:00

neral investigation should be instituted into the whole of their
past delinquencies. The Solicitor-General and the noble lord
the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed themselves to that
effect, the latter of whom went so far as to say that it was nut
intended that the committee should confine their inquiry exclu-
sively to the last election, but only that they should devote their
attention to it in the first instance. The question, then, was,
had the constituency of Liverpool reformed itself? It appeared
from the report of the committee that bribery and corruption
prevailed at the last election; and he believed' the desire to be
bribed, as far as regarded the old burgesses, was general and
undiminished. The hon. member here quoted several portions
of the evidence for the purpose of showing the gdneral expecta-
tion and desire felt by the old freemen to receive money for their
votes. With this evidence before them, he did not see how the
members of that house could refuse to accede to the proposition
for the re-appointment of a committee of inquiry. (Hear.)—
The hon. member said that the evidence went. to prove that
Mr. James Ackers and Mr. I'. B. Horsfall, the son of the
Mayor of Liverpool, had proposed to „eive half a day's wages to
such of the old constituency as would receive it, to vote for
Lorct.S.indon and Sir Howaid Douglas. (Cries of no, no, read,
react) The hon. member then read the evidence, from which it
appeared, that the witness on this point said, upon cross-exami-
nation, that he was not sure whether Mr. T. B. Horsfall was
present or not when the proposition was made. (Loud laughter.)
tic contended upon the evidence of that witness, which he read
at considerable length, that Mr. James Ackers had from his own
knowledge of the Ind constituency calculated the purity of each
of the old electors at the price of 2s. 6d. a-head. He then ad-
mitted that, though it was easy to prove the readiness of those
electors to receive bribes, it was a task of more difficulty to prove
that bribes had been given to them. Still no man who consi-
dered the evidence carefully, could have the slightest doubt that
bribes had been given. There was the evidence of Mr. Kehoe
that ribands, in which sovereigns had been wrapped up, had
been furnished by Mr. Wilson, the liuen-draper, to Mr. Ackers,
and had been given away by Mr. AckerS to different voters. Mr.
Ackers had admitted that he had given away ribands to the elec-
tors wrapped up in paper envelopes, which lie had received from
Mr. Wilson. Mr. W. might have been called to prove that those
paper envelopes contained nothing but ribands. The other side
had however, not called him, and what was the inference which
the house ought to draw from the non-production of Mr. Wilson ?
After insisting that he had proved to the conviction of every un-
prejudiced person the wholesale disposition of the old consti-
tuency of Liverpool to receive money, if money was offered to
them; he called the attention of the house to the unremitting
attention which the canvassers for Lord Sandon and Sir IL
Douglas displayed in ,eoing up to the poll on the second day of
the ejection with the old constituency, many of whom were in
a state of compete intoxication. Why was this done ? Be-
cause several of those electors, when the bribery oath was put
to them, refused to take it, in spite of the intoxication which
overpowered them. There was proof upon proof that these
canvassers had pressed many of the electors—whose consciences
permitted them to take money, but whose consciences were not
sufficiently seared to take an oath that they had received no
money—to go again to the polling-booths and swallow the oath
which they had previously rejected. This was proved by the
evidence of Thomas Edwards, the bugleman to Lord Sandon,
who heard a man brought up by Lord Sandon's canvassers on
the second day say, when the bribery oath was tendered to him
by Mr. Thornely's agent, " No, I'm damned if I take it," and
then leave the liooth. The same witness also deposed that he
heard another voter, who was brought up by two young gentle-
men, dec'Are, on having the same oath tendered to him, " No,
I'll not take that oath, by God ! for I have been bribed." He
further deposed that when they left the palling-booth he heard
the same young gentlemen remonstrating wit;i the man on ac-
count of his refusal to vote, when he told them that they were
more in fault than he was ' • that they knew he was bribed, and
that it was wrong in them to bring him up to swear that he was
not. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member also referred to the evi-
dence of Dr. Thornely, the brother of the candidate, which
the house would find at page 27. The evidence of this witness,
which Mr. Warburton read, was to the effect theta voter, of the
name of John Whinwood, was brought up to vote for the con-
servative candidates. The bribery oath was put to him. He
repeated the words of the oath till hecame to the words" money
or. promise of money." As soon as he came to the words "pro-
mise of money," he stopped, and said, " I cannot swear to this,
for I have had promise of money." John Winwood was after-
wards called before the committee to explain this circumstance,
and he fairly stated to them, " I refused to take the bribery
oath because I had received apromise that I should have money
for my vote." (Hear, hear.) After the evidence which he
had read, he thought that it was impossible to deny that he had
laid before the house sufficient grounds for continuing the in-
vestigation, which had been so well commenced, into the cor-
rupt practices so long prevalent in the borough of Liverpool.
He was confident that if such investigation were granted the
iniquities of the old constituency of Liverpool would be proved
beyond all dispute. As the electors of Liverpool had not at the
last election turned away from their former iniquities, nor
shown a disposition to do that which was lawful and right, he
hoped that the house would inquire further into their conduct,
and would, if their guilt were proved, punish them for their
iniquities. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Ilouflaswozern contended that the Reform Bill was an
amnesty for the past proceedings of the borough of Liverpool.
If the non. member for Birmingham had been present, he
would have quoted the practices of the borough of- Liverpool,
to show, that as soon as a paper circulation was introduced
among the voters of that town, the price of votes, like that of
other commodities, rose from £5, £lO, to £lOO, and in some
cases even to £4OO. lie did not, however, see why practices
which at York were permitted to pass with impunity should be
punished with exemplary severity at Liverpool. At York bills
had been proved in a court of justice, in which sums were re-
gularly charged to one of the candidates, as inducements for
the freemen to vote for him. Nothing like this had occurred at
Liverpool; why were the freemen of Liverpool to be disfran-
chised, and those of York to go scot free ? (Hear, hear.)
Mi. Ltov co said that the question was, not whether the house
ought to punish the freemen of Liverpool or not, but whether a
certain body now vested with an important and vital trust were
qualified by their moral conduct to exercise it? If they were
not qualified to exercise it, then it was the ditty of the house to
deprive them of that trust. He reminded hon. gentlemen, that
in the unreformed Parliament, both Lord John Russell and Mr.
Charles Wynn bad said, that if the bill introduced on this sub-
ject in that Parliament were lost, it ought to be re-introduced
in the present Parliament, and that they would both be happy
to support it. From all that had been said; his conclusion was,
that the case ought to proceed further, and that it was one
which ought to be probed to the bottom.
Mr. Nictiota, contended that as the report now stood no man
who was acquainted with the rules of evidence in our courts of
justice could say that a case had been made out, or that any proof
had been given of bribery beyond the amount of three guineas.
One part of the proof was, that man had received 7s. a-day for
services
_performed during the election ; but if cases like that were
td be taken as proofs of bribery, there was no election in the
country that might not be set aside. It was, he contended, cruel to
drag up witnesses from Liverpool in cases of this kind. The house
should consider this was not an election petition. In that case
the expense would be thrown on the parties, but here it would be
thrown on the public, and he would ask the house was there any
case made out to show that such an expense ought to be in-
curred? The honourable member then went on to contend
that whatever bribery had been proved was confined to an ex-
tremely narrow compass, and that no case of general bribery
had been shown to warrant a further inquiry, or to put the
country to any further expense.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the great error of honourable mem-
bers who had preceded him was the putting proved cases of
bribery in the place of corruption. It was perfectly clear from
the evidence, and it was admitted iu the speech of the noble
lord (Althorp) and of the Solicitor-General, that corruption
might exist without proof of bribery. The instructions to the
committee as to the bribery at the late election did not confine
them to that election aloue, and therefore their opinion as to
that election might be taken as surplusage, for they ought to
have gone further, and on looking further he thought the case
was clearly made out.
Mr. GASKELL opposed the inquiry, on the ground that no
case had been made out for their proceeding further, and that
such inquiry could tend to no practical result. In fact, the pro-
ceeding further in this case would establish a dangerous pre-
cedent, which would hazard the peace of every large town in case
of acontested election.

Mr. GLA S t I•Jsaid that the town of Liverpool laboured
under considerable disadvantage in this case, from the recol-
lection of hon. members of the occurrences at the election of
1830, which had secured to that town an immortality of dis-
grace. (Hear, hear.) But let hon. members also consider,
that before that time the great mass of the electors, who were,
.he admitted, poor, did not vote for money, but voted for their
masters and employers. He objected to the quality and quan-
tity of the evidence, and denied that there had been any proof
of systematic or extensive bribery. Such being the ease, he
implored the house, in the name of justice and common sense,
not to sacrifice the rights of the freemen generally on the
ground of a few particular and isolated cases of misconduct,
as a peace-offering wherewith to appease an unjust arid un-
founded clamour.

. _
Mr. R. WASON was of opinion that the ease of those who
supported further inquiry was fully made out by the evidence
before the committee, which established in the clearest man-
ner the existence of repeated and long-continued corruption in
Liverpool.,
Mr. HODGSON said that as far as he could judge from the
evidence, no serious delinquency had been proved, and -he
should therefore oppose any. further inquiry,
Mr. WvNN would have given his support to any proceeding
for the punishment of delinquency while the offence was recent,
but a new constituency having been mixed up with the old in
a way which rendered it, in.many cases, difficult to distinguish
one from the other, he must object to an inquiry into by-gone
transactions, on the ground that it could not be so conducted
-as to effect the ends of justice. lie did not deny that,there
Might exist in Liverpool that degree of corruption which it was
difficult to avoid in large and populous constituencies. Per-
haps even Westminster itself, pure as 'it was accounted, might
not heat all tinies.wholly free from, the taint. It was. not nn-
common among a certain class of voters to ask " What will
you gilie.ule to eat? what shall' I get to drink?" It 'night be
auswefed,
.that: such questions .were put rather in jest than
earnest; Nut if not in earnest, they were a very bad joke.—
(" Ilear,". and laughter.) Under all the circumstances of the
present ease, he was- opposed to inquiry. .
Mr. O'CONNELL supported an extensive and searching in-
quiry, which he would carry nof-only into the cOnduct of elec
Lion of meinbers of Parliament, but (in pursuance of the order
of the 6th • march) into the management of elections of magjs-
trates. 'ln 1830 corruption had been. carried to an excessive
pitch, and if bribery were not so extensive 'at the last, election, it
was becanSe the creation of a new constituency had encouraged
candidates to offer themselves who would not resort to the prac-
tice. There still remained plenty of bribers, but the bribers
were wanting. He conjured. the house to take steps to prevent
the filthy abomination of bribery from staining the robes of jus-
tice, and repeated that the electrons of magistrates, no less than
of members of Parliament, should be placed upon an irreproach-
able footing. • After remarking upon the corruption of the free-
-men, he observed that as regarded elections for members of
Parliament, those individuals might be supposed to be rendered
pOwerless by the infusion of an additional constituency under
the Reform Bill; but although they had received a paralytic
stroke from that measure, the freemen were not wholly dead
even at Parliamentary elections, and they were fully alive and
as vigorous as ever in the elections of magistrates. ( Hear, and
laughter.) In conclusion, he appealed to the house in the name
of justice, which had been disgraced, and public honesty, which
was tarnished by the proceedings at Liverpool, to probe the
matter to the bottom.

Lord SANPON thought it did not become the advocates of
popular rights to visit with severity on every occasion every the
smallest deviation from propriety that might take place on the
part of a few of the poorest voters. Ile asked the house whether
the whole body of electors .vas to be convicted of bribery and
corruption on such meagre evidence, and upon such a trifling
accumulation of instances as appeared in the blue book on the
table? ( Hear.) The whole amount of bribery (giVing cre-
dence to the evidence to the fullest extent) was £3l, employed
in corrupting a constituency of between 4(X10 and 500 U voters !
(Hear.) . Was it pretended) that the virtuous £lO householders
could he overborne ty the freemen, and .C3l spent in bribery?
Was the house told of treating ?. Why, the treating alleged
Only amounted to bi 12s. Did -gentlemen talk of the assumed
general disposition to receive bribes ? And were they goin7 to
condemn parties on the mere allegations of three individtials
that the voters were willing to be bribed? Two of the persons
who alleged this disposition to bribery against the electors were

strong partisans of the defeated parties, and had had no inter-
course with the freemen ; and the third individual stated that
fifteen or twenty persons asked him for half a day's wages.
Could such demands be prevented unless recourse were had to
a higher constituency than was to be found amongst £lO house-
holders ? The hon. and learned member for Dublin talked of
the seat of justice and the robes of the magistracy being defiled
by corruption. He (Lord Sandon) confessed that, some years
ago, two great contests took place for the mayoralty, and he
did not deny that on those occasions bribery might have been
resorted to; but there was no ground for saying that the prac-
tice had been continued. Besides, even if it had, what had the
proceedings at the election of mayor to do with elections for
members of Parliament ? The noble lord concluded by congra-
tulating his constituents on the acquittal they had received.
Colonel WILLIAMS said that he had known Liverpool for 35
years, and had never known but two instances of magistrates
being elected on pure principles. The object at present was
not -disfranchisement, but inquiry; but although he was an
elector of the borough,—though he was never implicated in
these transactions, (a laugh,)—he should be satisfied to be dis-
franchised among the rest, provided the other electors shared
the same fate. (A laugh.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY was understood to oppose the inquiry.
The house then divided :
Ayes . 166
Noes B4
Majority for the committee ---82
The result was received with cheers.
The committee was then appointed, and was directed to re-
port from time to time to the house.
Lord SANDON then moved that it be an instruction to the
committee to inquire into the last elections, beginning with
1&31, to report on each election separately, whether there was
general bribery or not, and the names of all parties guilty of
bribery, or of being bribed.
Mr. Nicitoct. seconded the motion.

Mr. IL WA SON put it to the noble lord whether the effect of this
motion would not be to stifle inquiry. (" Hear" and " No.")
He reminded the noble lcrd that the writ in 1831 was sent to
Liverpool under the express understanding that it was not fair
to disfranchise a place without a representative being in the
house to defend it. The writ was issued merely to enable the
noble lord to defend the electors.

Mr. WARBURTON thought it more important for the com-
mittee to investigate the corruption alleged to attend the elec-
tion of the magistrates than that of port elections. He hoped
the house would not impose upon the committee such a restric-
tion as this instruction would prove.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY did not think that a select committee
was the best mode of investigating municipal corruptions.—
(" Divide.")
Lord SANDON said he thought it best to withdraw the motion;
he should find a better time during a future discussion. (Cries
of " Divide."). If the house insisted, he must of course divide
upon the question
Mr. HUME said that the present time was the best to discuss
and decide upon the motion of the noble lord.
Mr. H. GORDON said there was a great deal of public business
to be disposed of (hear), and the house ought not to allow the
noble lord to withdraw his motion with a view of discussing it
hereafter. ('• Hear," and " Divide.")
Mr. M. PHILLIPS observed, that it ought to be the first duty of
the representatives of the borough to promote inquiry into its
alleged abuses.

Colonel Noon said that if the house did not choose to deal out
to the noble lord the customary courtesy, in allowing him to
withdraw his motion, he should move that the house- do now
adjourn. _ _ _

Mr. ELLICE said, that looking at the state of public business,
he did not know when it would be possible for the noble lord to
renew the discussion on this subject. He must oppose the motion.
The gallery was then cleared on the question of adjournment,
but none eventually took place.
Colonel WILL' Ams moved " That the Vice-Chancellors of the
Universities of OxfordandCambridge be directed to communicate
to this house copies of the religious tests required of persons on
admission into the universities, or at the time of taking any de-
gree; as also the dates of the original imposition of those tests,
and at whose suggestion and by whose authoritiy they were then
imposed, and what alterations they have undergone since their
original imposition, with the dates of those alterations," which,
after a short conversation, was agreed to.
Mr. V. SMITH then moved "an address for the appointment
of a commission to inquire into the state of municipal corpora-
tions in England, Wales, and Ireland."—Agreed to.

BANK CHARTER.

Mr. V. SMITH brought up the report on Lord Althorp's reso-
lutions relative to the Bank charter, which was agreed to, and a
bill founded on the resolutions was ordered to be brought in.
The orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house
adjourned at a quarter past two.

HOUSE OF LORDS, FRIDAY, JULY 5.
THE THkLUSSON PROPERTY.
Lord LYNDHURST moved the suspension of two standing or-
ders, relative to the introduction of private bills, for the purpose
of presenting a bill on this subject, which he afterwards with-
drew, in order to present petitions on Monday from the parties
interested in this case.
EAST INDIA CHARTER.
The Clerk at the table having read the resolutions agreed to
by the house of Commons upon the subject of the renewal of
the Charter of the East India Company,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved their lordships' con-
currence, which was obtained, and a message was sent to the
Commons House to acquaint them therewith.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY, JuLY 5.
The Speaker entered the house at a quarter past twelve
o'clock.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL presented three petitions from parishes
in Ireland for an alteration in the laws relating to tithes.
Mr. CORBETT congratulated the house and the noble lord
(Althorp) on having come to a rational time of meeting.
The house then went into committee on the church (Ireland)
temporalities bill, and was occupied on this bill until three
o'clock, when the Speaker left chair.

The Speaker resumed the chair at 5 o'clock.
On the motion that the order of the day be read for the house
resolving itself into committee on the
CHURCH TEMPORA LITIES' (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. M. ATrwoon asked whether the noble lord (Althorp)
intended to give the power to joint stock companies of drawing
bills in London for sums under £5O.

Lord ALTHORP said that the joint stock companies had not
the power to draw in London for such sums, but that if it were
found necessary to change the law on the subject, the Bank
would.not have the right to object.
The house then went into committee on the Irish Church
Temporalities' Bill, when the clauses from 114 to 138 were
agreed to, with souse verbal amendments.
On clause 138 being put,
Lord Aurnottp said he had an alteration to propose in the
terms of this clause. As it originally stood it stated that the
commissioners to be appointed under the act should inquire re-
specting, and ascertain the full improved yearly value of the
lands and premises cited in the bill, according to the usual
mode of estimating and ascertaining the same. It was further
stated that the commissioners were empowered to deduct El
per cent. from the value of the fee-simple and inheritance of
the land referred to, as a kind of bonus to the lessee; but as
the valuation was, according to the amendment agreed to the
other night, to be taken according to the custom in the respect-
ive diocess, and as this alteration would occa ion a diminution
in the amount of the valuation, it was thought advisable to
leave out the words in the clause which guaranteed the reduc-
tion of 4 per cent. in the amount of the value of the fee-simple
and inheritance. The valuation not being required according
to the original mode, the bonus consequent on that valuation
was, of course, judged unnecessary.
Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Shaw, and Mr. G. F. Young opposedrthe
amendment, and
Lord ALTHORP said, that seeing it was so generally objected
to, he would withdraw it.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to, the house re-
sumed, the report was received, and the bill was ordered to be
read a third time on Monday.
The Parish Apprentices Bill and the Artillery Pensions Bill
were read a third time and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Lord AI:1'110RP moved the three revolutions
that during the remainder of the session this house will proceed
upon the orders of the day at the sittings between 12 and 3
o'clock, in addition to the business already appointed to be done
at those sittings. Second, that petitions shall have precedence
of orders of the day on Mondays and Wednesdays, and orders
of the day shall have precedence of petitions on Tuesdays,
Thursdays, and Fridays. Third, that when the house is pro-
ceeding upon orders of the day, the business before the select
committees shall be suspended-.
The resolutions were agreed to.
THE CALTHORPE-STREET AFFRAY.

Mr. ROEBUCK was about to give notice of a motion with re-
spect to this subject, when
Lord ALTHORP said, that he meant to give notice that on
Tuesday next he would move for the appointment of a commit-
tee to inquire into.the transaction.
FACTORIES'

Lord ASHLEY moved the order of the day for the committee
on theTactories' Regulation Bill.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the cbair,
Lord ALTHORP rose and said, that in addressing the. house
he would, in the first place, beg to draw their attention to the
situation in which this measure now stood, and he would.suggest
what appeared to him the most reasonable course to be pursued
in order to arrive at the end of passing such a measure during
the present session as- would satisfy ad. parties. A committee
of the wholes-house upon such a measure as this, and involving
such a mass of details, was not the mode in which he thought
they could come to a satisfactory conolusion, tied hii was sure
that-the delay in a committee of this description. would be such
as to. prove that the course would be till,. very reverse of satisfac-
tory. Since he had looked at the provisions of theMrible,Lord's
(Ashley's) bill, and the report of the conainissitmers, it appeared
to 11:m that no course would be so advisable' or tend'So much to
a proper arrangement, as 'the referring the bill -to' a :erect com-
mittee. By this he did not mean a select committee that should
have powers of calling witnesses, and entering into evidence,
which-would be productive of the greatest- possible delay, but
he did not think that a select committee as • stairs, acting under,
instructions from the house, would be productive of any delay ;
but, on the contrary, he believed that the 'reference to •sucli
committee would have. an infinitely greater, tendency to expe-
,dite the measure than submitting it to a committee of the
whole house. But on looking at the provisions of the noble
lord's biil, he could not but feel apprehensive that it' the bill
were passed in its present form, it would have a Most injurious
effect upon the manufacturing interests of the country.—
He was not one to say that nothing ought to be done in this
case, as, from the general excitement and feeling throughout
the .country, Parliament must interfere and prevent unfortunate
children from suffering under cruel oppression, and being
treated with undue severity. But when the measure of the
noble lord, taking the ages of the parties into consideration,
went to fix on the short period of ten hours, he thought the
noble lord shortened the period too much as regarded adults,
more particularly as ali the arguments urged in the house re-
ferred to children of nine, ten, and eleven years old, and did not
apply to adults, who had au option to work or not as they
thought proper. The house had the opinion of the commis-
sioners, that the protection afforded to children was by no means
satisfactory; let the house, then, limit themselves to this sub-
ject, without applying themselves to parties for whom their in-
terference was unnecessary, as they could choose for them-
selves. He wished, then, that the bill should be altered in this
respect, and that the best protection should tie afforded to
children, properly so called,leaving out adults. With this view,
should the house agree with him, he would wish to Wel the
subject to a select committee, and he would suggest that an in-
struction to that committee -should be, that, children before the
I-Ith vear of their age should not be allowed to work more than
eight hours a-day. (Hear, hear.) The great object urged by
the noble lord, (Ashley,) and one which every man would
willing-
ly give his aid to, was to give children the -benefit of education
which it was impossible they could enjoy while they were
compelled to continual labour throughout every day, and he
(Lord Althorn) therefore thought that care should'he taken
that the children should have this advantage during the in-
tervals which occurred in their labour. (Hear, hear.)
great difficulty in every case was, how to carry laws which
were passed into effect, for it was well-known that although the
law restricted the labour in cotton-mills, it remai aux The
iost a
dead letter. It was known that many would practise evasions,