The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-02-26 00:00:00

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

Mr. JOHN BENETT presented a petition, signed by 3,010 mer-
chants, tradesmen, and others, of the town of Liverpool, com-
plaining of the gross corruption carried on in that borough by
bribery and other means at all elections, as well for Mayor and
other corporate officers, as for Members of parliament. The
petitioners stated, that notwithstanding that the new electors
under the Reform Bill had done their duty honestly, yet so
great was the corrupt influence with the freemen, that disgrace
still rested upon the town, and they prayed for the disfranchise-
ment of those freemen altogether, as the only means of purify-
ing the borough. This subject might now be considered rather
stale, as he (Mr. Benett) had on two former occasions brought
in bills with the same view that was now prayed for in this pe.
4tion, namely to disfranchise the freemen. Those bills, how-

Sir R. VYVYAN said, that as yet he had
io noble lord whether they were to confin
iations from charters, or to attack the
le still maintained the opinion, that a cor
f Commons was an unfit tribunal for con,
wiry on the subject. He agreed with hi
le member for Kent, that its appointmer
iii
opee:oucititrida. t
icht,airi:ut
at. a
ai charters
ncd N7l)bme
elßa absurd
a,.lotailBuecorporations.pdpifsuppose
ion of what might be expected hereafter,
leasuresarre o, f a reformed parliament, affoi
rise him to find patents of nobility treater
marnine all the accounts of all the corpo
parities, and the repairs
examination of the corporatioecnurtlehotsafyPtell'
teded, if it were known that the committee
amine into this or other corporations.
The petition was laid on the table.
M. ArrwooD gave notice that he shoull
''scrod the order.
Mr. Tr.it
. -•,r (Monmouth) read a letter fro
rome
roingivEiTnUnggElt:KnltdhN,eG oF BELGIUM'S D
etAlrll of the movies paid into the Excht
,11,.i.tY granted to his royal highness as the I
`esrs, of Wales. eor ntth. per o:
, `JllaticELLott of the EXCHEQUER sa
afterE
f Exchequer
hl
certainegu
,ivi.entue had been applied to the payment (
lea, as was usual in such calculations,
lan had been supposed. (Hear.) He ha
otiosity felt by the hon. mover; and, on
Ee received was, that the debts were not
e.re the charges, that at first the truster
ieekwF.re now over, and the country woull
iiiilitgy
004113elgium refused to act, for fear c
ikil
o,llll7.tisheNrinasjeelsvtyes,s.
e(
nHeeroasri,th.ear.) Tln
t
tat'e -11 debt. He wished to know whether
lea of the King of the Belgians, he did
eei).‘
Dori
tit let,ittuoithzeoaxr washat aswtitohn shed, and
iii
il
es
Mere throne, throne, and beidau
ii.irietisof his income from this county
illuitY:wil4niirllsgelf) dilisseolvv
litests and connections.
l r* HALL withdrew his motion.
PUBLIC WALKS, &C.
mlidmemmaaneidnaitalie
teienni
ytothtahEtet
04; the motion of Mr. SLANEY, ac sr
pointed, "to consider the best meat
aces in the immediate vicinity of popul
It's, calculated to promote the health

ever, let the house remember, were founded on the
committee of that house, before whom the most gross
faced bribery was proved to have been practised in the
and he (Mr. Benett) was now fully prepared to prove
all doubt or suspicion, that on a recent election threel
freemen had been bribed with money. This new bribe
fore it was that the petitioners now complained of, and 1
it might have been stale to revive the former grounds
plaint, this recent corruption created a new necessity
interference of the house to enforce an enquiry into the
so notoriously existing in this town. He should therefol
for a select committee to inquire into those new acts of 1
stated in the petition, preparatory to his bringing in a
the subject.
Lord SANDON said that he did not feel disposed at pre,
go at any length into the merits of the petition WI
hon. friend had just presented to the house, particular
better opportunity for his doing so would arise when b
friend should bring forward the measure of which l
spoken; but he (Lord Sandon) could not help agreeie
his hon. friend that it was now rather too late to net
question of bribery at the election of Liverpool, seeing
had already been so frequently brought before the house
hon. friend to little purpose. Since the period when hI
friend first brought forward this subject, three election
taken place at Liverpool, of which two were wholly'
peached, and the third was complained ofonly by a dissapo
party, who had collected money for the alleged purpose'
peaching the election, but had shrunk from prosecuting
threat before the proper tribunal, where the matter wool
undergone a rigid investigation, under the sanction of ae
which could not be the case in the mode of proeeedit
which the petitioners now called, before a select coin
where witnesses could not be sworn; and this party, so.!
pointed, now took advantage of a mere rumour, that er,
had been practised; for if they had been in a situation tot
any thing of the kind they would not have shrunk front
so; and this rumour lie had no doubt was propagated by
selves. He would pledge himself that he had a perfee
viction that there was no act of bribery practised by any;
supporters at the election alluded to, unless, perhaps, soe
judicious friend might have given a glass of ale to an 1
(A laugh.) The party to which he alluded were also ,
pointed that the Reform Bill did not work so well to their;
faction as they expected. He should now say nothing fii
but would go more at length into the subject when bit,
friend should bring forward his motion.
Mr. Wesoel said that he had not the slightest doubt lie,
noble lord who had just spoken believed the assertions ll'j
made to be true, but he (Mr. Wason) had no doubt alset
there was no foundation whatever for those assertions. im ,
HOME, receipts and expenditure of the
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
reason that money may not have been so lavishly spent at°,ieb.r; ticeie, pursuant to notice, moved
tions of late years was, that there was no money to spenle:
e A to fie estimates for the charges of co
it was a notorious fact, that the last election for Mayor el!'ilt system of accounts was very defer
°tinting to E 4,000,000, the same as the
verpooi cost upwards of £BOOO, and this was a most base
of demoralizing the lower classes. Is the allegation of tb'
peltrZtion could be in no way checked by t
ble lord, that no bribery took place, to be taken in prcfe lazltee navy, &c. At present the iteir
to the statement of the 3,000 petitioners who had si
rots
the Exchequer department, so as
petition ? He (Mr. Wason) should feel that he had aoti, e CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
charged his duty if he had not noticed the assertions of tble.°
SSA and and expenditure; and those 'ten
ble lord. It was rather too much for the noble lord W leir
plain of the forbearance of the petitioners as regarded. 111; ase to judge of the fitness of subset
turn at the last election, particularly as the fourteen daepreg_es•
presenting election petitions had now elapsed. He woule-m° 'notion was eventually withdrawn.
the noble lord, was it not a notorious fact, that at one of De r• LIGHT HOUSES.
polling booths of the noble lord the voters were brought s..tre cleste said that he had now to subir
such a state of intoxication that the clerk refused to take ii, len of a very different nature, to whi
sieerable reduction in those duties. Hi
votes, and was not the carriage of the noble lord seen le I,,Lei°ll would be offered. The subject
ii
streets of Liverpool, while the noble lord himself was ill' tiesrileortance to the shipping interes
when
_ea,bject up, because he understood tha
with a number of drunken freemen on the dickey ? (Laugh litl levied upon it to defray the charges
How did the noble lord account for the extraordinary so ' e "'es. In the year 1821, when he f
.aule report full of details upon it. In t
he met with on the second day of polling, when on the firs' ?revert", he hoped that his exertions w
his opponent was 600 a-head on the poll ? Did not this
,oer the bajury which these duties intli
from the freemen holding back till the second day,
were sure to have their regular price ? The petitioners an trade had taken it under their cs
prayed for an inquiry into these most flagrant abuses, and
inquiry ought not to be withheld. treated in 1823, they pointed out in a 1
Mr. WARBURTON said that he perfectly agreed with the
4 Navin
.lle was sorry to say that 'instead
member who had just spoken that this was a case that oug es' cst They eid not question he right
be inquired into. The noble lord said that no abuse had ores °f Public lights to private illeivieua
place, or undue influence been used by any of his suppo t es the present leases fed. in they sl
but how could the noble lord know what might pass lot should be granted to the Trinity Boar(
two persons on the occasion of an election ? He (Mr.
e':a. to Mr. Coke, and other private int.
burton) was certainly opposed to unseating a member oli Twine been adopted, the Duugenesi
ground of bribery, unless it were distinctly proved; but he Mari.,ich, at Orfordness, and at \Vie
decidedly for instituting inquiries on all such occasions.
Mr. Beeerr, in explanation, said that he should confine t?, which a tax of £30,000 had been in
self at present to giving notice that on Thursday next he sb 'IT nave-. He would read the amount
move for a select committee on the petition. een incurred by the shipping interes
Q.+ f_
CORPORATION REFORM. Nance with an
' -4 these leases. The leases of Wint
Mr. M. ATTWOOD rose to present a petition from the le, ‘, . alth an order of that house
are that in 21 months alter the renews
chant Tailors' Comany of the city of London complaini
4 pas family and £ll,OOO to the Com
a petition that had. been presented to that house, on MO seta over and above the expense of m
last, from a person named Robert Hugh Franks, and le, (1 le, ;.'t 1:22,000, of which Ell,OOO wen
was ordered to be referred to the committee on corpora
The petitioners complained that the character of their bodY dee re,!te• Now that tease had been rt
been grossly traduced and calumniated in that petition,. is„ieeri two ministers to the contrary
prayed that it might not be referred as ordered to the cone c‘rle had no prerogative to tax apc
on corporations, e t4ex benefit of another portion by' u
Mr. HILL, by whom the petition alluded to had been e was in for the purpose of In
sented, mentioned that it was a very fit petition to be ref ereaauet io,t to exceed the expanse o
to the committee on corporations; for the company , 'les I the last 40 years the lights
plained of was a trading company, and a constituent port' vats i
the corporation of the city of London, for it was well k mi, hdividuals. It would be his du'
ed produced no less a sum th
that no man, unless he belonged to one of the trading co e 4ell he was going to move, and t
nies, could vote either for a common-council-man, or fora elov as no objection, were laid upon t
son to fill any appointment or office in the city of London ght ? for a select committee to see le
before the reform bill passed for a member of parliame use rJe reduced or otherwise altered.
e TI •
the city. li at bungencss produced i:80U0 I
Sir E. KNATCHBULL wished to ask the noble lord wh he Zia ,-am Jell Xleoo a year, whilst
the committee in question was‘empowered to investigate the h,e already stated, produced aen
cuniary affairs of large trading companies,. and whether it ~,, ,ep to state, that since the ye,
his intention to submit such a petition as that under deli serer reduced the charges for '
o;ii
rt‘vt,
or
rs
est required
rhe by
nt.h
me
cm presente t
hdc,
tion to the consideration of the committee ? kl.
4.. full one half ; but he was of opinit
The CHANCELLOR of the EYCHEQUER said it never win isiti:i
tags of sums levied upon the mere
intention, in appointing the committee, to have referred , s
any matters connected with a private or trading corpora
(Hear, hear.) The committee had to do with municipal ' de, ;Peones. In the Year 1828, when
porations, and those only. As to the petition in question eeee.e amount of rafes levied for lig
thought it ought not to have been referred to that corneal ts a ,7,,a in or X 34,000; and in It
as that body had not power to deal with it. s,theret lof £I39,(XX). If to this sum w
Sir B. PEEL thought the most regular course for them to ee '- private lights which he had just
sue would be to rescind the order for referring the petitio se. atotal of 1:168,000 thus levied upon
rico there were seven other private fig
the committee, as, according to the statement of the noble 14
the committee had not power to deal with it. (Hear, h Isis tleit obtained a return of income, b
The Court of King's Bench was open, if anylelisconclacteeiee ssreale, he thought that he might t.
been committed by the rulers of the company, and it was bMeee a,lsed bv lighthouses at £18.5,000 c
for that house not to assume the exercise of any powers er 111,1 8 inat the whole of this system w
it was not fully recognized to possess. li4 th h uPeose that in selecting individua
,
The SPEAKER said that, if the committee had not poet re eit,e uses, care would be taken to s
deal with the petition, a reference to it would not give it th therier acquainled with their inanag
tpower. thee, the house felt that the committee had.'eee "a and naval affairs. This care
he power, house would rescind the order, with a view to lest,e(),Tl,l4.lel generally exercised, but such
the petition on the table, to be dealt with as the house might seeleetsh ;-1 and Ireland. He had got a -lis
Mr. HOME said, that as to the question whether this tiers, 'vas
who were all of them eittic
municipal corporation or a trading corporation, he believe k he''l., the Provost of Glasgow, the
the question were asked what trade it carried on, the ape tuneeteff riepute of Lauark, and other:
would be, none. But it certainly hail the power of influene ge it rae nut one naval man in weer.
},e ei—e:— e -.--- -,-, --a 1 ........-Lsr• ri'.
this . . ' see, se" hale 'IQ 431,000 a-year to Fpuurl i
liverymen in the city of London, and company 'night a t, hose ;• They had a very able man
from one to twenty, or a thousand, in one day. This, he thou po lit to suppose that they knew any
brought it under the description of a municipal corporation• le li,,tion too preposterous to be enter
had no hesitation, therefore, in saying that the committee eee',',' „Scotland was bad, Ireland was st
power to deal with it. intlss". 150ard at Dublin, which had the r
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that he had th .un the coast of Ireland, and of Si),
expressed any opinion whether the company was a municiel baehltr Maintenance and erection. '1
a trading corporation, and was not prepared to give any oPwetee'"ers, not one naval man acted wits
on the point. illieoot be over the shipping interest
Mr. O'CONNELL thought the best course would be for the re it required. He felt that it was tl
officers of the crown to advise his Majesty's ministers whWers-eoqer these duties as light as possible
upon the facts, this was a municipal or a trading corporatieteareteMerce very rigorously. lie was
It was necessary that the house should ascertain that. If it else), w'' were fenced round with charters,
a trading corporation, or even a trading corporation with c' ese ere not unwilling to meet Govern]
ties attached to it, the committee clearly could have nothingo .0 se
that the Trinity Board i
do with it. But as it appeared that it influenced the electie .t ,a IQ. justice to the charge reposed i.members for the city of London, and of the sheriffs and the h A the same of the Scotch baillies at
corder, all these were municipal functions—and so far the e,Teut lighthouses, nor of the Iris'
tany was a municipal corporation, and, if so, it came within
term of the order. , i,_ ?relies. (A laugh.) he was q
se w'iLit3', knew less. The lights oug
Mr, BARING said, that the committee was not enepowereet,
.t guts those northern lights entirely,
it certainly ought not to be empowered, to inquire into the
perty of these bodies, or the manner in which such property iv
_Uter;-, was done upon this subj et
disposed of. That would be establishing a tyranny whicre, e
fie wleit had been done since the re
ee"w the Teallast Board to exist an]
people ought to resist, as the most dangerous of all descrie ii, *'Y aware of the improvements e
of tyranny. If he were examined as a member of such boat ie.; §ut what he wanted to ascertain
;,,4,iassed by these private lights by
should feel it his just duty to resist any question put to him w
committee as to the disposal of property that belonged to ' eie, exercise of the prerog,ative. The
or the corporation. He was not without apprehension .
powers of this description, if once admitted, might grove t
e, t• sums thus paid by the owners
great abuse. There was this difficulty. in the present cases-- e toe country was obliged to pay eve
the petition did not relate to the municipal or trading charnel tip the the proprietors of these lights.
es.trin'which he looked upon this ma
or functions of the Merchant Tailorf Company, but referee" ~,,,10,e the reciprocity system, the Br
some alleged mal-application of their funds. Now he held ,0 by treaty to defray all the extra
with that question the committee had nothing to do. He the 1 'S has to pay in our ports, beyond I
the best course would he to rescind the order.

Mr. WARBURTON said it was clear that this company cal
on no trade, but exercised the same functions as corporat
in provincial towns and boroughs. If this committee had
power to deal with it, surely it was fitting that sufficient pal
should be given either to it or to some other committee.

ase remember, were founded on the rei,
at house, before whom the most gross ad
as proved to have been practised in the l
!nett) was now fully prepared to prove,
,picion, that on a recent election three t)
en bribed with money. This new briber,
the petitioners now comßlained of, and el
en stale to revive the former grounds
!nt corruptiou created a new necessity
he house to enforce an enquiry into the
xisting in this town. He should therefor
mittee to inquire into those new acts of
ition, preparatory to his bringing in a

said that he did not feel disposed at pre!
;th into the merits of the petition iVby
just presented to the house,
arise when
wing forward the measure of which
(Lord Sandon) could not help agreeilc
that it was now rather too late to mot}
sry at the election of Liverpool, seeing
,1
a so frequently brought before the house'
ttle purpose. Since the period when
ight forward this subject, three electio,
Liverpool, of which two were wholly']
third was complained ofonly by a dissap?.
Collected money for the alleged purposo;
ection, but had shrunk from prosecuting
e proper tribunal, where the matter woul4l
id investigation, under the sanction of abl
t be the case in the mode of proceedini
ioners now called, before a select cola')
could not be sworn; and this party, so
ok advantage of a mere rumour, that b'
,ed; for if they had been in a situation toy
kind, they would not have shrunk froni
lour he had no doubt was propagated by?
ild pledge himself that he had a perfeo
e was no act of bribery practised by anyi
election alluded to, unless, perhaps, sos
might have given a glass of ale to an d
sl party to which he alluded were also
Reform Bill did not work so well to their;
xpected. He should now say nothing Al'
Lore at length into the subject when hll
,ng forward his motion.

aid that he had not the slightest doubt b
iad just spoken believed the assertions h,
but he (Mr. Wason) had no doubt also
undation whatever for those assertions.'
ey may not have been so lavishly spent at I
rs was, that there was no money to spend,,i
is fact, that the last election for Mayor Li
Yards of £BOOO, and this was a most base it,
the lower classes. Is the allegation of lbe.
1 bribery took place, to be taken in pren
of the 3,000 petitioners who had sign.e
!qr. `Mason) should feel that he had uot 1
if he had not noticed the assertions of tbl
; rather too much for the noble lord to A
,
earance of the petitioners as regarded 1
election, particularly as the fourteen da',
on petitions had now elapsed. He woulo,l
vas it not a notorious fact, that at one 0'
"the noble lord the voters were brought
ntoxication that the clerk refused to takel
of the carriage of the noble lord seen il
-)ool, while the noble lord himself was in
l
i.,
f drunken freemen on the dickey ? (Lauri,
ble lord account for the extraordinary s
he second day of polling, when on the firsj
s 600 a-head on the poll ? Did not this
:n holding back till the second day, when!
re their regular price ? The petitioners ',
luiry into these most flagrant abuses, and'
,t to be withheld. ,

FON said that he perfectly agreed with the!
I just spoken that this was a case that oug
The noble lord said that no abuse had
influence been used by any of his suppol
he noble lord know what might pass bet!,
the occasion of an election ? He (Mr. "
tainly opposed to unseating a member 0
y, unless it were distinctly proved; but he
tituting inquiries on all such occasions.
n explanation, said that he should confine:,
giving notice that on Thursday next he syr
committee on the petition.

CORPORATION REFORM.
DOD rose to present a petition from the
.1!
ompany of the city of London complained
ad been presented to that house, on Mad
ion named- Robert Hugh Franks, and
,e referred to the committee on corporavi
omplained that the character of their hod'',
heed and calumniated in that petition, g
ght not be referred as ordered to the corarY

r whom the petition alluded to had been
d that it was a very fit petition to be ref
!e on corporations; for the company
trading company, and a constituent port►
)f the city of London, for it was well lin
ess he belonged to one of the trading co
zither for a common-council-man, or for 3
,peintment or office in the city of London
a bill passed for a member of parliamev

HBULL wished to ask the noble lord will
question wavmpowered to investigate the,
large trading companies, and whether it
submit such a petition as that under delivl
Leration of the committee ?
LOR of the EYCHEQUER said it never vial
Jointing the committee, to have referred,
iected with a private or trading corporavl
[le committee had to do with municipal
hose only. As to the petition in question
to have been referred to that comral
not power to deal with it.
ought the most regular course for them toll
escind the order for referring the petitial
I, according to the statement of the noble
ad not power to deal with it. (Hear,
ing's Bench was open, if any misconduct
)7, the rulers of the company, and it was
to assume the exercise of any powers V
'cognized to possess.
said that, if the committee had not poll
tition, a reference to it would not give it vl
fore, the house felt that the committee hadr,
Ise would rescind the order, with a view to PI
table, to be dealt with as the house might see
1, that as to the question whether this Al
Aim or a trading corporation, he believe
e asked what trade it carried on, the an!,
But it certainly had the power of influea)
city of London, and this company might a
:y, or a thousand, in one day. This, he thong
the description of a municipal corporation.
therefore, in saying that the committee
h it.

Loa of the EXCHEQUER said, that he had
inion whether the company was a municie
tion, and was not prepared to give any opts

L thought the best course would be for thel
Trn to advise his Majesty's ministers whevt',
us was a municipal or a trading corporali
hat the house should ascertain that. If its,',
tion, or even a trading corporation with C 1
t, the committee clearly could have nothim
is it appeared that it influenced the electio°
city of London, and of the sheriffs and the
were municipal functions—and so far the cc
eipal corporation, and, if so, it came withia

r.
id, that the committee was not empowered,
not to be empowered, to inquire into the
lies, or the manner in which such property
at would be establishing a tyranny whica,
esist, as the most dangerous of all descriE
e were examined as a member of such boat
just duty to resist any question put to hint "
the disposal of property that belonged to
Ln. He was not without apprehension .
escription, if once admitted, might grow' d
ere was this difficulty in the present case-1
Lot relate to the municipal or trading chard
te Merchant Tailors' Company, but referre;
-application of their funds. Now he held
the committee had nothing to do. He theel
ould he to rescind the order.

ON said it was clear that this company cal
exercised the same functions as corporat
ns and boroughs. If this committee had
h it, surely it was fitting that sufficient pal
tither to it or to some other committee.