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

ceptionable; and he hailed it as an admirable precedent, for
punishing not only successful, but unsuccessful bribery, without
regard to time or distance.
Mr. WARBURTON considered the provision that the commit-
' tee should be chosen only from among those present—that is,
answering to their names—to be very objectionable. It was
well known that on election ballot days there was almost inva-
riably what was called a " whip,"—that was to say, a very
pressing call for the attendance of the friends of the parties im-
plicated and interested.
Mr. BARING was inclined to regard the very important pre-
cedent which the noble lord called upon them to establish as
fraught with very serious objections. Was it to be a general
precedent, or only a partial one ? Did the noble lord propose
that every petition complaining of corrupt practices at elections
should, as a matter of course, be the subject of a similar in-
quiry? If he did, who was to bear the expense, and who suffer
least from the inconvenience ? If he did not, was he not open-
ing the door to a system of mischievous partiality ? Pray, who
was to defend the poor accusers in this inquiry ? Was not the
house bound to furnish them with the means of defending the
poor elector ? Then, see how the precedent would nullify that
excellent provision of the Grenville Act which punished, and
that effectually too, the rich corrupter, by rendering his elec-
tion null and void.
Mr. BENETT said he could assure the hon. member for Essex
that the poor freemen of Liverpool would not be without de-
fendersin the event of this committee being appointed. These
poor freemen were the tools of the corporation, and he had no
doubt that the whole of the corporation funds would, if neces-
sary, be applied for the purpose of defending them. He ob-
jected to striking the names of any persons off the committee
who should be chosen by ballot; but he thought that no person
should be fixed on the committee unless he was iu the house at
the time the ballot was being taken.
Sir R. PEEL doubted whether the corporation had by law the
power of applying ls. of their funds to the purpose of rebutting
the charges which might be brought against the freemen before
the proposed committee. An act was passed last session for the
express purpose of preventing corporations applying their funds
to defray election expenses, or any expenses incidental to elec-
tions. By that act, any officer who expended the corporation
funds for election purposes could be compelled to refund the
money out of his own pocket. Now, there could be no doubt
that any sum expended to defend the fteemcn of Liverpool be-
fore the proposed committee would be an expense incidental to
an election; and he therefore strongly advised the treasurer of
the corporation of Liverpool to be very cautious before he is-
sued any money for that purpose. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WasoN said that the expenses f the deputation that
came from Liverpool last year to prevent the freemen from be-
ing disfranchised, amounted to £1,200, and the whole of that
sum was paid by the corporation.
Mr. HUME said' there could be no doubt that the application
of any corporation fund for election purposes was illegal, and if
the statement made by the honourable member for Ipswich were
correct, he would advise some of the burgesses of Liverpool to
compel the corporation to refund the money. (Hear.) But he
thought that the public money. could not be better expended
than in the prosecution of an inquiry the object of which was to
put down bribery, and he trusted that the house would take
up every case of this sort, and allow of no compromise being
made between interested parties for the purpose of stifling in-
vestigation.
Lord SANDON intimated, that no compromise of such a na-
ture had taken place in the present instance.
Mr. H UME said, that, in the present state of the house, when
only about one-third of the members were present, he did not
think it right that the ballot should be proceeded with. Ile re-
commended the hoii. member for Ipswich to withdraw his
amendment, in order to give the hon. membei for Bridport an
opportunity of moving his. He thought that every member
should be obliged to attend, according to the practice, during
ballots for election committees, and that no member whose
name should be drawn ought to be struck off the list.
Mr. WARBURTON said, that, understanding the hon. member
for Ipswich was willing to withdraw his motion, he would now
move an amendment making the ballot to apply to the members
who were absent as well as present, excepting such as had leave
of absence, or were serving on an election committee, or had
any other exemption that the house might think satisfactory.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY said, that if the hon. member for Mid-
dlesex's suggestion was acted on, and the public money ex-
pended in inquiries like that which was about to be instituted,
any reduction which government could make in the estimates
would fall very far short of the sums which would be so con-
sumed. He believed that if the house once consented to cuter
into inquiries of this nature, there would no end of them.—
(Cheers.) He was convinced that if they were to be conducted
at the public expense, every defeated candidate would come be-
fore the house praying for an inquiry into the circumstances of
his opponent's election. (Year, hear.)
Mr. W. HARVEY said, that the house having on a previous
night formally decided that a committee should be appointed,
the only question now was the mode in which that committee
ought to be formed. Had he been present the other night, he
had no hesitation in saying that he would have voted against
the appointment of the committee, because he thought that
after the passing of the Reform Bill a curtain ought to have
been allowed to drop over the transactions of former times.
But that matter had been decided, and now the only question
was how ought the committee to be constituted ? He saw no
reason why any names should be struck off after the ballot.
He considered that the committee had better consist of 15 than
21 persons; and that the attendance of each should be required
as strictly upon this committee as upon any committee ap-
pointed under the Grenville Act. (Hear.)
Mr. W. WYNN objected to the precedent which would be
established by the appointment of the proposed committee.
He believed that its eflect would be to lead the house into in-
terminable inquiries. (Hear, hear.) If, however, it was de-
cided that the committee should sit, he thought it absolutely
necessary to strike off a certain number of the names drawn by
ballot. If this were not the case the most reckless individuals
might be constituted judges on a matter deeply affecting the
rights and privileges of the people • and, in the event of three
or four gentlemen being chosen who were known to be eager
either for or against the borough of Liverpool, the consequence
would be the public would believe the entire committee were
influenced by their partialities.
Lord J. RUSSELL agreed with the right hon. gentleman in
thinking, that if the names of three or four gentlemen known
to be eager either for or against the borough of Liverpool were
allowed to remain on the committee, it would create a belief
that the committee generally were influenced by partiality
either to one side or the other. He therefore thought it better
that there should be a power of striking off a certain amount of
names; and the power of striking off four names would, in his
opinion, be sufficient. If the house should be in favour of a
different arrangement from that which he had proposed, he
should not be discontented;, but he saw no reason why it should
not come that evening to a decision upon the present question
either one way or the other.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY.—I trust the noble lord will persevere
in his original plan, and allow four names to be struck out on
each side on the ballot. The number four is sufficient to keep
out those who may have a strong bias, and yet not enough to
strike the brains out of the committee, as is said. Our object,
at.the least, is a fair and impartial tribunal. I object altogether
to the committee, and I think, if such inquiries are to be pur-
sued, it would be much better to constitute by law a proper tri-
bunal, acting under the sanction of an oath, and when the
attendance of those who are both judges and jury may
.be
secured. The noble lord has referred to a precedent at a period
subsequeut to the revolution. It is notorious that at that period
the proceedings before committees were most scandalous and
unfair; the majority in this house rode over the minority, and
election proceedings, which should have been the subject matter
of law and of justice, were determined by the spirit of party.
Sir R. PEEL thought that if the plan now proposed were
adopted, the house would lose the benefit of its best tribunal,—
namely, that appointed by the Grenville Act for the trial of
election petitions. Individuals would prefer trying cases of
bribery at the expense of the public to trying them, as they
must do, at their own expense, before election committees no-
minated in the ordinary way. In those committees they had
done away with nominees, and that was thought a great im-
provement in their constitution; and yet by this plan the house
was appointing nominees, the very tiling which was deemed so
objectionable in other cases.

Lord ALTHORP said, that as a large majority of the house
had been of opinion that a committee should be appointed, the
only,question which the house had then to discuss was hew it
.should be appointed. There would he this difference between
the nominees to this committee and the nominees to election
committees: the latter were sworn, the former would- net be
sworn. Their duty would be limited to seeing that no injustice
was done towards either party. This committee would differ in
another respect from election committees. The election com-
mittees decided each case, and their decision was final: but this
committee would only have power to report to the house, and
the house would be called upon to decide whether it would
stand by their report or not. He did not think that this plan
would
.induce individuals to pursue election petitions, not at
their private expense but at the expense of the public. Elec-
tion petitions were in general presented by individuals for the
purpose of unseating rival candidates and of seating themselves;
and in all former cases, as, for instance, in that of Grampound,
where the inquiry was instituted at the public expense, the sit-
( ting 14etubers had never. leen uubeatel, although the borough