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

SLAVERY.

Earl Sr. VINCENT gave notice, that on the second day after
the recess he would present a petition from merchants, ship-
owners, mortgagees, and other persons interested in the colo-
nies, praying the house to protect their rights. He moved that
their lordships be summoned for that day.—Ordered.
The Bishop of Bairroi. presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Cambridge, praying the house to adopt measures for
the prevention of unnecessary cruelty to animals.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave notice, as we understood, that
a commission was about to be issued to inquire into the law of
Scotland, similar to the common law commission in England.
The last report of the latter commission was now upon the ta-
ble, and would be ready for delivery to their lordships in a day
or two.
The Sewers Bill was read a second time, and referred to a
select committee.
Adjourned to Thursday next.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, MAY 23.

The SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter past twelve.
Captain ELLIOT presented a petition from the female inha-
bitants of Hythe, against negro slavery.
Mr. R. TODD presented a petition from Honiton, for a repeal
of the house and window tax.
Sir J. SEBRIGIIT presented a petition from an individual
named Hibbert, stating that he was a proprietor of slaves to a
very great extent, that he objected to the ministerial plan for
the emancipation of the negroes, and that rather than subject
the country to the infliction of a lo for ompensation to the
slave-owners, he would be willing toan havec his slaves uncondi-
tionally emancipated.
Mr. F. O'CoNNOß.gave notice, that on the 24th of June he
should move resolutions to the effect that the union between
England and Ireland had been proved to be a measure of bad
policy, and that the conditions under which it had been com-
pleted had been violated.
Mr. Roue presented a petition against the substitution of
10-gun brigs for packets sailing to and from the port of Fal-
mouth.
Captain ELLIOT defended the conduct of the Admiralty in
the alteration that had been effected, and pointed out many ad-
vantages which had resulted therefrom. He understood from
many persons at Falmouth that the petition did by no means
was glad to hear the subject was under the at-
represent the general feeling of that port.
Sir G. GREY
tentive consideration of his Majesty's government.
Mr. ROLFE presented another petition from the mayor and
aldermen of Falmouth respecting the limits of that borough.
Herbert, addressed to him as chairman of
Sir T. WINNINGTosr stated that a letter had been received
from Mr. Sidney
the Montgomery election committee, stating his inability to at-
tend the committee in consequence of indisposition.
A medical gentleman was examined at the bar of the house,
and swore that the hon. member would be unable to attend his
parliamentary duties until next week.
On the motion of Sir T. WINNINGTON, Mr. Herbert was ex-
cused from further attendance on the committee.
Lord Li sicoLN presented a petition'frorn a parish in Notting-
ham, and also a petition from the delegates of Scotland, in
favour of the Ten Hours Factory Bill, and praying an address
to his Majesty to be pleased to recall the commission.
Mr. CLAY presented petitions from several parishes in Lon-
don in favour of the present system of beer-shops; a petition
ag a from the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch,
river Thames, against the county
complaining of distress, and praying and police rates; and a .petition from the ship-sawyers of the
consoli-
dation of the various acts in existence on the subject of ship-
ping and commerce.
Mr. Osw ALI) presented petitions for the immediate abolition
of slavery, from places in Scotland.
Sir R. DONKIN presented a petition from the shipowners of
laws,
i cakn-du pporna-yl: Nnvge ettehouse
complaining
to of some of the navigation
enact
certain laws for their
protection.
Mr. H Awes presented a petition from the inhabitants of the
Kent-road, against negro slavery.
Mr. An LIONDY presented several petitions from Clerkenwell,
Newington, and other places, in favour of the Beer Bill.
Referred to the beer committee.
Sir R. INGLis presented a petition from the electors of Bed-
ford, respecting the registration of voters at the late election.
Mr. FerzsistoN presented a petition from Clare, against the
punishment of death except in cases of wilful murder, and
several petitions against negro slavery.
Lord MoRPETH presented several petitions from the West
Ridint, of the county of York, of a similar kind.
Mr. AlonGes presented a petition from a body of Dissenters,
complaining of certain disabilities respecting marriage registra-
tions.
Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from East Kilbright,
against church patronage; also a petition from the attornies of
Paisley, respecting licences.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Newborn, in the county
of Fife, respecting the qualification of voters in Scotland.
Sir R. VYVYAN presented a petition from the clergy of the
eastern division of Cornwall, against the Irish Church tempo-
ralities bill, and a petition from Bristol against the ministenal
plau for the emancipation of the negroes; also similar petitions
from Edinburgh and Dumfries, and a petition from St. Stepen's,
Bristol, against the assessed taxes.
Mr. EGERTON presented several petitions for the better ob-
servance of the Sabbath from the county of Chester.
Lord EBRINGTON presented several petitions from the county
of Devon, for the abolition of negro slavery; also a number of
petitions against the tithe system. The noble lard also present-
ed a petition for a repeal of the 16th section of the 10th George
IV., relating to weights and measures; and gave notice that on
the 17th of June he should move for leave to bring in a bill to
make it compulsory to use the imperial measure in all cases.
Sir J. Owen presented several petitions from Wales for the
abolition of slavery.
Mr. SANFORD presented a petition from Wellington in favour
of a bill for the better observance of the Sabbath; and petitions
against slavery and the beer bill.
Mr. MoewroN presented several petitions for the abolition of
slavery from Limerick, Margate, Dublin, and also flora bewu-
-lev in favour of the beer bill.
The SPEAKER then vacated the chair.

The SPEAKER resumed the chair at five o'clock, at which time
there were scarcely more than 20 members present.
On the motion of Mr. HUME, several returns relating to the
national debt and the per cent. duties were ordered to be
printed.
Captain GaoNow took notice that 40 members were not pre-
sent, and moved that the house be counted.
The SPEAKER intimated to the hon. member that as it was
not a quarter past five o'clock the house could scarcely be said
to have had time to form itself.

Mr. SHAW then presented petitions for the better observance
of the Sabbath-dav, and against the Church reform bill.
It being now a quarter past five o'clock,
Captain GRONOW again moved that the house be counted,
and only 29 members being found to be present, the house ne-
cessarily adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, FRIDAY, MAY 24,

The Speaker the chair at a few minutes before twelve o'clock.
Sir C. PAGET took the oaths and his seat for the borough of
Carnarvon.

Mr. &LIVER then gave notice of a motion respecting the
poor laws, the purport of which we were unable to catch.
Mr. PRYME presented a petition from the members of the
corporation of Cambridge, complaining of abuses which existed
in that corporation; and a petition from the same place against
colonial slavery.
Mr. Rica supported the corporation petition.
Mr. T. ATYWooI, presented a petition from a village in Ox-
fordshire, complaining of distress, and stating that they could
only obtain from Is. 21. to Is. 6(1. per (lay for their labour. At
the-workhouse at Birmingham he believed they were very ill
paid, but they gave the paupers 3s. Gd. per week. The hon.
member also presented a petition from Nuneaton, complaining
of distress, and praying the house to repeal the corn laws, the
duties on malt, hops, soap, and all the necessaries of life, as the
only means of relief; also a petition from the Birmingham
Polish Association, praying the house to present a humble ad-
dress to his Majesty, to form a league with the King of the
French, -on behalf of the distressed Poles. He belie-Ved that
the holding up of the Enger of England, two years ago, might
have. saved Polandas well as Constantinople, but now it would

millions or hundreds of millions to save the latter, and save her
we must, unless England were prepared to surrender the
Thames to the Czar ot Russia. He next presented a petition
from a person named Solly, who attributed all the commercial
distress to the present system of the currency. Iu the prayer
of this petition he heartily concurred. He also presented pe-
titions from Dariaston, for an alteration in the laws that regu-
lated the new beer shops, to make them more independent of
the police; from the political union of Birmingham, in favour
of the ten hours' factory bill; and several petitions for the abo-
lition of black slavery. The honourable member, after refer-
ring to a great variety of subjects, concluded by-observing that
there were three parties in this country—the ultra-radicals, the
ultra-tories, and the ultra-whips; and it was a remarkable
thing that though they were divided on all other subjects, there
was one in which they all cordially agreed—Ahay all united in
making war upon the currency, and would one day pull down
the whole fabric of society on their heads.
Mr. DIVETT gave the hon. member credit for the honesty of
his intentions, but protested against his doctrines. He believed
doctrines of a more destructive character were never promul-
gated by any man—(Hear, hear). He had been pleased to
read the house a lecture on foreign policy, and to talk a great
deal about white slavery but he (Mr. Divett) differed with the
hon. member on the subject of white slavery, and believed that
if it existed the hon. gentleman didnot proceed in the right way
to put an end to it, by setting the people against their rulers
—(Hear). The hon. member had said that there were three
great parties in England ; he would add a fourth, to which, he
believed, that hon. gentleman belonged,—namely, the Ultra-
union party (hear, hear), which was more dangerous than all
the other three—(Cheers). He thought that the observations
in which he (Mr. Attwood) was accustomed to indulge against
savings' banks came with very bad grace from him (hear), and
he (Mr. Divett) considered them one of the best inventions of
this country for the benefit and happiness of the lower classes.

ASSESSED TAXES.

Mr. WALTER gave notice, that upon the house resolving it-
self into committee upon the assessed taxes, he should move
that the relief coutemplated by the bill should be extended to
the premises occupied by licensed victuallers and schoolmasters.
Mr. MARSLAND presented a petition from Stockport in favour
of the introduction of poor laws into Ireland.
The Speaker left the chair at a quarter to three o'clock.

The house resumed at five o'clock.
Sir T. WINNINGTON brought up the report of the committee
on the Montgomeryshire election petition, declaring J. Edwards,
Esq. to have been duly elected, and that the petition was neither
frivolous uor vexatious. _

Sir W. GUISE brought up the report of the committee on the
Clonmel election petition, declaring D. Ronayne, Esq. to have
been duly qualified and elected.
Mr. GOULBURN presented a petition from the town of Cam-
bridge, against the Irish Church Reform Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL stated, in answer to some remarks made
across the table by Lord Duncannon, that he would postpone
his motion relating to the information against the Lord Primate,
which stood for Thursday : day not fixed. We understood the
ground of postponement to be the fact of a uew trial having
been instituted against the right rev. prelate.

HERTFORD ELECTION.

Mr. BERNAL rose to propose a resolution founded on the evi-
dence taken before the committee on the election for the borough
of Hertford, on which he conceived it highly important that the
house should express an explicit and decided opinion. The
hon. member (the report of the committee made on the 2d of
April having been read) thought it necessary beforehand to re-
, mind the house that in 1831 the borough of Hertford was con-
' tested, and that Lord Ingestrie was the unsuccessful, and Mr.
Duncombe the successful, candidate. In consequence of this
result the party which supported Lord Ingestrie formed a club,
called the Union Club, which met at the Wheatsheaf, and which
was duly organized, for the purpose of returning one advocat-
ing their own particular opinions to Parliament. A practice
had prevailed at Hertford, since the month of August, 1832, of
distributing dinner or refreshment tickets. These tickets,
which were blue and red, and of the value of 2s. 6d. or 55., were
given away by a person named Dack, who was fostered and
ushered into notice under the auspices of Mr. George Nichol-
son; and it was acknowledged by Mr. Nicholson and Mr.
Longinore that a sum of £lOO appeared to be entered in their
banking account in the month of August, 1832, as money paid
to Dack for the issue of refreshment tickets. He was not pre-
pared to go the length of saying that candidates should be de-
barred from giving the electors some little refreshment, but he
thought the house ought to discountenance a gross and corrupt
system of treating, the only object of which was to influence the
votes of the electors. (Cheers.) He was prepared to wove
from the evidence that these tickets were applied not solely to
the purpose of obtaining refreshment, but that they currently
passed in the borough of Hertford as paper money (hear, hear,)
and that they were taken in payment at the different grocers',
drapers', and other shops. Ile, therefore, was justified. in say-
ing that these tickets were not issued for the purpose of re-
freshment, but that they were a mere election manoeuvre, to
establish for corrupt objects a paper currency. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. Nicholson, one of the agents of Lords Mahon and
Ingestrie, admitted in his evidence that he had provided the
means of discharging these tickets, and he said that their issue
was not confined to the early part of August, but that there
were two issues of tickets subsequent to the entry of the noble
lords into the borough, as late as the end of November, within
a few days of the test of the writ. It appeared from the evi-
dence of Mr. Pollard, a draper, that these tickets came to his
shop during the period of canvassing and of the election, and
that they were taken in payment for goods by one of his ap-
prentices, who was told by Dack that they would be all duly
honoured and paid. In consequence of this assurance tickets
to the value of £l2 12s. 6d. were taken by Mr. Pollard, for
part of which he received £9 7s. 6d. in payment from Deck,
having given the rest of the tickets to Robert' Harris, a butcher,
for meat. He, therefore, thought he was not using an exag-
gerated term when he said that the distribution of these tickets
was only a device, and a shallow device, to evade the laws re-
lating to elections. (Hear, hear.) Not less than £3OO were
paid by Mr. George Nicholson to discharge these tickets—a
sum much too large to be expended for the mere purpose of
refreshment in a borough the whole constituency of which
amounted to no more than 690 persons. (Hear, hear.) The
value of these tickets was not restricted to 2s. Gd. and 55., but in
many instances extended, as appeared from the evidence, to 10s.
He hoped that after this statement he should have no occasion
to enter into any argument to prove that bribery and corruption
brought in their train a mass of crimes which no man could view
without horror. It was a disgrace to the British nation that
those things should occur every day and almost with impunity.
Whose fault was that ? The fault of the legislature ? (Hear,
hear.) The statute book was crowded with laws for the preven-
tion of bribery, but it was quite clear that those laws were in-
efficient. He therefore trusted that his noble friend below him,
who had acquired such lasting glory by destroying the corruption
of that house, would endeavour to acqnire a still more brilliant
reputation by destroying the corruption of those who had the
power of electing that house. In the mean while he (Mr. Ber-
nal) should submit two resolutions to the house. The first went
to state that the bribery and corruption which prevailed in Hert-
ford both before and after the late election for that borough re-
quired the most serious consideration of the house. His next re-
solution, supposing the resolution which he had just read to be car-
ried, would be to move that aselect committee be appointed to con-
sider the best means of preventing bribery and corruption in the
borough of Hertford. There was a new practice, buthe hoped that
it was not a bad one. He mentioned that there was one case ana-
logous to it, but we are sorry that the particulars of it did not reach
the gallery. But supposing that it were entirely without precedent,
has not the house sufficient confidence in its own wisdom to make a
precedent for the occasion? As the neighbourhood of Hereford was
populous, and as several towns and hamlets were within a radius
of a few miles of it, it puzzled him much where to place the limit
in case the house should be of opinion that the extent of the
borough should be increased. Some gentlemen called for the
disfranchisement of a certain class of voters. He did not know
how far that might or might not be desirable, but in his opinion
a sufficient case had not been made out for the total disfrachise-
ment of the borough. He thought that a committee might trace
out new limits for the borough, by which fresh blood might be
introduced for the purification of that which had become cor-
rupt. He believed that they might amalgamate a new consti-
tuency with the old constituency to such a degree, that if the old
corrupt practices could not be exterminated altogether, they might
at least be rendered innoxious and harmless. The hon. mem-
ber, after a brief apology for the length at which he had tres-
passed upon the house, concluded by moving the two resolu-
tions which we have inserted in his speech.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET would state the grounds upon
which he differed from the hon. member for Rochester. The
hon. member for Rochester stated that all cases of bribery in
elections ought to be treated with great severity. He agreed
with the hon. member, but he also desired not to mix up the
innocent with the guilty. and to subject both to the same pu-
nishment. The hon. member for Rochester had been particu-
larly successful in keeping the house in doubt as to the purport
of the proposition which would follow upon his present motion.
He had kept his intentions so sedulously to himself, both in his
private intercourse and in his public, as to render them a matter
of complete uncertainty. The hon. member's attention had,
however, been more directed towards the justification of the
Hertford committtee in turning out the sitting members than
towards any endeavour to inculpate the electors, or to show
cause for the house to adopt ulterior proceedings against the
borough. The expenditure in treating before the testing of the
writ was not such a crime as to justify the house in awarding
such a punishment on Hertford as the hon. member for Roches-
ter evidently wished them to do. Why, if the evidence before
the committee, as to the treating and distribution of tickets for
months before the election took place, was to be suffered to form
a ground for proceeding, the house might as well put a step to.
everything like charity, or the bounty of families in the coun-
ties, and all over the kingdom; for the distribution of food,
clothing, or necessaries, might thus become subject to the im-
putation of being bribes for votes at the ensuing election.-
1 he borough of Hertford had not been fairly defended; in fact,
the hon. member for Rochester wished to punish it without even
a conviction; for all the counsel had to do was to defend the
sitting members, and not the borough; and if; therefore, the
house was called upon to punish the electors, let them first be
convicted of an offence worthy of punishment. lie had no dis-
position, he assured the house, to contest its right to interfere
with a question as to the purity of electiOn, but he trusted that
in following that object they would not interfere with the purity
of justice as between the parties interested. lie must say, too,
that the most improper view had.been taken by interested indi-
viduals of the occasional distribution of blankets to the poor
electors by the Marchioness of Salisbury. From the lung con-
tinuance of that practice by her—for now above three years—
it was but fair to attribute it to feelings of a very honourable
nature to her. Were they, by the proposed inquiry, to put
bounds to private charity, or dry up the sources of benevolence?
(Hear.) Did they propose by this motion to institute an in-
quiry into the whole conduct of all the voters, both rich and
poor, throughout the district attached to this borough, which
comprised an extent of nearly 10 miles ? Surely such an in-
ckuiry would not be required after the very protracted examina-
tion
of evidence that had taken place on that subject; and from
all that had transpired during that inquiry, he must, in taking
leave of the subject, confess he did not see that a sufficient case
had been made out to show the criminal privity of these parties
—now unseated—to those alleged acts of treating and bribery,
and to induce the house to adopt the mode of proceeding recom-
mended by the motion of the hon. member.
Mr. CLAY observed that the greater part of the noble lord's
speech had been addressed to the question whether the decision
of the committee had or had not been a correct decision. It
would, in his mind, be difficult to arraign that decision in the
eyes of the public. For himself he must say, he thought it was a
decision which reflected great credit on themselves, and which
must ultimately do good throughout the borough representation.
Would the noble lord contend that noTrinto jade case had been
made out to show that the electors of Hertford were not worthy
of being entrusted with the elective franchise, after all the evi-
dence to prove the extent to which bribery was carried on in
that borough? or would he contend that there was not, at all
events, a case for inquiry ? (Hear, hear.) The reformed Parlia-
ment would best ensure the confidence of the country by enforc-
ing a strict and firm inquiry into every case of this description
which might be brought under its notice. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. W. WyNN said that the question before the house was
not as to the conduct of the late members of the borough, but as
to whether the electors had abused their-franchise to such an
extent as to call for so severe a punishment? In the case of
Hertford he believed there were only eleven or twelve cases of
bribery proved—certainly the number was under twenty—and
this oat of no less than 6% electors. Surely such a limited

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.