The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-12 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6th, Fivz o'CLocK.
(Adjourned sitting.)
Sir M. W. RIDLEY, brought up the report of the Committee
on the Carnarvon Borough Election, Petition declaring that
Sir Charles Paget was not, and that Mr. Manning ought to
have been declared, duly elected.
The SPEAKER informed the house that a petition had been
presented from the agent of Mr. Jephson, who had petitioned
against the return for the borough of Mallow, stating that the
recognizances which had been entered into for prosecuting the
petition, and had been transmitted to the Speaker, had been
lost.
After some conversation it was resolved that the petitioner
should be allowed till Tuesday se'nnight to procure ctvidence
to establish the facts alleged in the petition.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL brought in a bill to abolish fines
and recoveries, which was read a first time.
Mr. O'CoNN ELL gave notice of a motion for leave to bring
in a bill to abolish fines and recoveries in Ireland.

TAKING SEATS IN THE HOUSE.
Mr. C. WYNN said, that after prayers yesterday, when the
Speaker directed the serjeant to proceed to the committee-rooms
to summon members to attend to the service of the house, at
least one-third of the members present immediately left the
house, thus making it apparent that they had attended prayers
only for the purpose of taking seats. He thought that this was
a practice which ought not to be allowed to continue, and he
therefore moved "that no member should be allowed to keep a
place who did not attend to the service of the house."
Mr. WHizsioaa said, that if the practice of taking places
were to continue in its present form, the business of the house
could not be carried on. Many members were unable to obtain
seats at all. Since Parliament met he had never been able to
procure a seat until that night. (Hear.) That was a great
grievance. He believed it was the practice for members to
come down early and take seats, not only for themselves but
their friends. It was, indeed, evident that there was not suffi-
cient room in the house to enable the public business to be
transacted properly, and he hoped that some reform would take
place upon this point. (Hear.)
Mr. WARBURTON said, he was glad to hear the observations
of the hon. member for Wolverhampton cheered by the house.
It must be agreeable to the house to know that to-morrow the
hon. member for Middlesex would submit a motion relative to
the propriety of building a new House of Commons, when he
hoped that all hon. members who felt an interest in the ques-
tion would be present at the discussion which might be expected
to take place.
Mr. BARING thought that no member should be allowed to
take a vlace in the house, and moved an amendment to that
effect. the present practice rendered the attendance of mem-
bers at prayers merely a hypocritical farce.
Mr. HusiE said that if members were not allowed to take
places in the present house, they would have no opportunity of
addressing the house.
Mr. O'CoNNELL said that matters were bad enough already,
but the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex
would make them worse.
Lord ALTHORP also disapproved of the amendment.
Sir R. INGus said he would take that opportunity of calling
the attention of the house to a subject connected with the prac-
tice of taking places. There had recently been a departure
from the old practice of the house, by which the first opposi-
tion bench was reserved for such members as had formerly tilled
high offices in the state. He had recently observed his right
hon. friend, the member for Tamworth, wh.o had formerly been
a leader of that house, unable to find a seat on that bench.
Now, although his right hon. friend had on one question given
his support to the government, he apprehended that he was not
therefore to be altogether deprived of the character of being in
opposition. He did not wish to allude to particular individuals,
but he would put it to young members whether it was fair that
they should, by occupying the bench in question, drive from it
members who 'had for many years taken an active part in that
house? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. COBBETT said it was impossible he could fail to perceive
to whom the hon. baronet applied his observations. It was
clear that the hon. baronet deemed him an intruder (" N'o"a—
that he bad got into a situation where he had no right to be;
but he could assure him that whenever he was attending in the
house, and the front bench on either side was not entirely oc-
cupied, he would have a seat on one or the other of them.
(Laughter.) He was at a loss to know what superior preten-
sions the right hon. baronet alluded to possessed compared with
him. To be sure he had done much mischief. (Order.)
The SPEAKER said he hoped that whatever seat the hon. gen-
tleman might choose to occupy in that house, he would at least
conform to the rules and orders of the house, and not presume
to state opinions with respect to any individual in either his
public or private character, such as he was not warranted in
stating. (Cheers.)
Mr. COBBETT said he understood the hon. member for Ox-
ford to have pointed out the right hon. member for Tamworth
as an individual who was entitled to a preference with respect
to the occupation of a seat on that side of the house. He was
going to observe, when he was interrupted, that he knew of
nothing pre-eminently worthy in the right bon. baronet, which
would justify the pretensions put forward as to his right to a
particular seat. He was not inclined to cede that right to him;
and, it' he were present, he would give him his reasons fully and
plainly for thinking that he of all men in the house ought not to
enjoy pre-eminence on that.or on any side of the house. Now,

with respect to the inconvenience of which hon. members had
complained, it all arose from the government being so saving
and parsimonious—so sparing of the people's money. They be-
grudged the expense of providing a suitable building for the
representatives .of the people; the house must therefore put up
with the inconvenience, only praying to God to alter the hearts
of the ministers, anti make them a little more squandering.
(A laugh.)
After some further conversation, Mr. Baring withdrew his
amendment, and the motion was agreed to.

BOROUGH OF LIVERPOOL.
Mr. BENETT, in rising to bring under the notice of the house
the corrupt state of the borough of Liverpool, said that it was
not his intention to detain the house long, but he felt it neces-
sary to go into a short detail, in order to justify the motion with
which he intended to conclude. The subject branched out into
two divisions; first, the corruption and bribery which prevailed
during the corporation elections, as well as during the elections
for members of Parliament. It was well known that for many
years past the elections for the mayorality had been marked by
the grossest corruption. On various occasions vast sums of
money had been expended in the contest. In one year the
election cost £lO,OOO, and so late as the year 1827 it was said to
have cost no less a sum than £15,000; and, should his motion
for a committee of inquiry be granted, he should be able to
prove that corruption had been practised in the mayoralty elec-
tions down to a very late period indeed. The prevalence of
bribery in the corporation elections led to the introduction of
the same system in elections for members to sit in that house,
and the fact was, that these corrupt practices could be traced
back to a very early date. But, not to go further back than the
election in 1830, he would just state to the house what was
the condition of the borough of Liverpool at that period. Dur-
ing that election scarcely a freeman went uncontaminated to
the poll. Money was lavished in all quarters, the bribe varied
from £5 to £lOO a man; and he had it in his possession that
even a magistrate had allowed himself to be corrupted. He did
not impute these acts of bribery to the hon. member who was
returned at that election, but who was -afterwards on petition
unseated. They were committed by some indiscreet friends of
his; but they were not, on that account, the less illegal. He
had seen the election books, containing the names of certain
electors, with a sum of money placed against each ; and he
would undertake to prove that upwards of 3,000 freemen had
been corrupted at the time of that election, and that in some in-
stances where the parties had received money from both sides
the bribe had been returned. That election was supposed to
have cost £BO,OOO. The noble lord near him (Lord Sandon)
had asserted that since that period bribery had not been prac-
tised at Liverpool. He believed, however, that the old corrup-
tion had not been laid aside even at the last election. He had
not been himself to examine the evidence on this subject, but
it had been laid before two eminent counsel, and one of them
assured him that he never had a stronger case, and that he was
perfectly satisfied he should have been able to unseat the sitting
member. . The election was turned entirely by means of the old
freemen. The noble lord's opponent was at the head of the poll
on the first day of the election, but the freemen came up on the
second day and turned the scale-1,113 of them voting for the
noble lord, and 339 only for his opponent. He was assured,
too, that the bribery oath was put to the freemen, but that it
was invariably refused by the old freemen. He had already
said that the Liverpool elections were always noted for corrup-
tion. In former times bribes consisted not so much of sums of
money as of places and situations given to the electors voting
in the interest of members who supported the government of
the. day. It was a fact that this patronage was never given away
by the members themselves, but was by them placed at the dis-
posal of a standing election committee, to be distributed among
the electors for no other purpose than bribery. (Hear.) There
used to exist in Liverpool a committee, composed of thirty gen-
tlemen, who subscribed large sums of money to return their
favourite candidate. This committee was called the "Canning
Cycle," and the whole patronage of government was placed in
their hands, which they sold, and thus reimbursed themselves
for all their expenses. This he called bribery, and bribery of
the most dishonourable kind; and it was on account of such
proceedings as this he called upon the house to grant a com-
mittee of inquiry. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord (Sandon)
had asked why the gentlemen who prepared a petition against
his return had withdrawn it from the consideration of that
house? He would answer the noble lord's inquiry. He knew
that that petition might have been prosecuted with effect, but
he was unwilling to have this subject taken up from party or
personal feelings. He told the promoters of that petition that
his object was the disfranchisement of the freemen of Liver-
pool, not to attack the noble lord (Sandou) but the general
system. Acting under his advice, and with those views, and
not (as the noble lord said) from any fear of having their peti-
tion declared to be "frivolous and vexatious," these gentlemen
gave up their opposition to the return of the noble lord. Their
object was to reform the constituency—to disfranchise the cor-
rupt freemen, who were the tools of greater rogues in Liver-
pool. He hoped the noble lord would not think that term too
harsh. (Laughter.) The noble lord declaimed about the in-
justice of any interference on the part of that house with- the
franchise of the electors. The noble lord said that elective
franchise was one of the rights of the freemen he (Mr. Benett)
did not regard the franchise in that view. The legislature in
conferring the elective franchise on a body of men did not give
them any right, but imposed on them a duty ; which, if they
did not perform conscientiously, the legislature would not con-
tinue to intrust to their execution. He was no advocate of an
unlimited elective franchise, but he confessed he would rather
have universal suffrage exist in any place than see the elective
right confined to a body_ of men who made a traffic of their
votes. (Hear, hear.) He thought. he had stated a sufficient
case on which to ground his motion. He was not prejudiced
in favour of the particular mode of inquiry he proposed, but
would adopt any plan which the noble lord (Sandon) might
suggest, if it would secure a full investigation of the subject.
He could not anticipate that his motion would meet with oppo-
sition. Those who believed the truth of his statement would of
course support it; and he thought it was ten times more incum-
bent on those who denied the existence of corruption in Liver-
pool to vote for an inquiry. The hon. member concluded by
moving " that a select committee be appointed to inquire into
the matters complained of in the petition of the inhabitants of
Liverpool, presented on the 21st of February, and to report the
result of their inquiries to the house."
Mr. WAsoN seconded the motion.

Lord SANDON complained of the unfairness of travelling back
through a long series of years for the purpose of casting odium
on the chara&er of the electors of Liverpool. He thought
thatihe allegations of the hon. member fur Wiltshire ought, in
fairness, to have been confined to the late election. The
ground on which the petitioners prayed for an inquiry was their
disappointment at finding that the change made by the Reform
Bill had not had the effect of preventing the commission of
corrupt acts at the Liverpool election ; and they implied that
if the election had turned out satisfactory to them, they would
not have called upon that house to investigate the case. He
contended, therefore, that it was not fair in the hon. mover to
travel out of the record and rake up every corrupt proceeding
at former elections. With those elections he had nothing to do.
Since 1830 two elections had passed unimpeached, and the third,
which took place in the last year, in the regular way prescribed
by the rules of that house. He did not think that the hon.
member was warranted in imputing corrupt motives to those
gentlemen who had formerly composed the committee of the
candidates in the government interest.. He held in his haud
a list of the gentlemen who formed the committee of Messrs.
Brougham and Crcevey, some time agO candidates for the re-
presentation of that town, and he saw that several had put down
their names for large sums, one for £5OO and another for 1:800.
Would the hon. member charge them with expecting reim-
bursement ? and if he did not, what right had lie to impute
corrupt motives to those gentlemen who supported a ministerial
candidate? (Hear, hear.) It was not unfrequently the case
that men engaged in political contests subscribed large sums of
money to effect the return of their favourite candidate. For
himself he could say, that he had been two years connected
with Liverpool, and never had received, in that time, a single
favour from government. (Hear.) That circumstance had
not, however, made his friends less stanch iu the support of
his cause. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord observed, that the
expense of his first election was £l,BOO, that of his second be-
tween £1,400 and £1,500; and he should like to know how it
was possible for him to have bribed any large number of con-
stituency, when he paid so small a sum of money? Was it
fair, then, to disfranchise the older freemen on the allegations
put forward by the hon. member? And upon whom else was
the effect of his proposition, if it succeeded, likely to fall? It
would not fall upon the rich, but upon the poor, although the
rich had been more guilty of corruption than any other portion
of the community. The whole number that would be disfran-
chised by the proceeding contemplated would be 1,448, while
the number accused by the hon. member was 3,600; so that a
very large majority of those whom the hon. member had pointed
out as the most guilty would escape. But of these 1,448, many
were clerks, book-keepers, and the younger sons of merchants,
who were not on the rate-books, and others who were not
resident in the town, and, therefore must be excluded from
the accusation, leaving the punishment of disfranchisement
to operate against a very small portion of really guilty per-
sons. The hon. member seemed to think that because all
the householders voted one way, they were therefore guilty,
and ought to be disfranchised. That certainly was a strange
reason for disfranchising. them. Surely it was not the inten-
tion of the Reform Bill, in continuing the sight of the 41 btu-

gesses, to debar all those who had recently received 0' oc!:,
tive franchise from voting as they chose. They were V
be disfranchised because they all pleased to vote one waY4,
argument of the hon. member amounted to this—that
ever it was found that a constituent body voted all one w 81,6
ought to be disfranchised. The noble lord here re',.e:i
the Grenville Act, by which the house had been reliei,,,te 171'
the duty of deciding on election petitions. The pre'r:-A'
that act stated as the reason for adopting it, that the 10",tte;
election petitions obstructed public business that it vasek -)?
ed with immense expense; and that the decisions of WreP;
on those petitions did not give satisfaction, as they WoOliA
sufficiently solemn and accurate. To remedy these Pots'
complaint the Grenville Act was introduced. And /ptg
the protection which that act threw over the seats eelec''
bers ? First, the petition was referred to a dommittef4d;
by means of ballot, and that tribunal was further pur',olv,
rendered still more impartial by striking off the narne,o4,
those parties who were, or could be, in any way intere
the case ; in the next place, the members were swerndi:,
justice; and the third protection was the power to clad
nesses, and to examine them on oath. Now, he We 011
which of all these provisions and protections did the hoo;,j
ber propose to extend the tribunal to which he wisstbeVot
petition to be referred? A select committee, such as
member had moved for, would not have the power to ei
witnesses on oath. It was clear to him that none w'm
fences which were thrown round the seats of members
Grenville Act would be advailable in this case. What w`),c,
~,f;
the consequenee, he asked, of ripping up, before a sec,
mittee, all the censurable transactions that were auetied
have taken place in the corporation of Liverpool for theodo
years, many of which, he admitted, were very strong,
~01104
believed, were well-founded? If it were possible to ,upo.
the tribunal proposed by the hon. member all the 944
connected with the present mode of deciding election 11,e riir
the plan would not be objectionable; but what could ed,,
vicious or insufficient than a tribunal such as that prof ire,
the hon. member, which should have the power to inqualleble
into one single case of corruption, but into all that were 015
to have occurred for 20 or 30 years ? If the praler,
Ipetition was granted, they would have the bar of tho ook
oaded with similar petitions. (Hear, from Mr. 0' C°,bef!.
He understood the cheer of the hon. and learned noie3o4.
Dublin, which he supposed meant, that the hon. and 41P'Id
member would have no statute of limitations by which i°ool,l,
of corruption which had occurred in former times s° 5
exempted from inquiry. (Mr. O'Connel—No, none'riori
knew not to what time the hon. and learned mernbeao
wish to go back, in cases of supposed corruption, if 00;
would not satisfy him. But this was not all that Ti
effected, if the prayer of the petition were agreed te' 014
they were called on to inquire into the-general historY
corruption, which, it was alleged, had existed for a lost%
of years in Liverpool. This was required for the mere 'ortil
of prejudicing the minds of their judges against those vlb
interested in cause previous to the matter beinker
before a committee. He had understood an hon. reer°"tlico
Wason) to say, that he objected to the petition reee". 01
sented because the name of the mayor of Liverpool via' r
foot of it. tion'
Mr. R. WASON said, he had not made that asset elei
had said that the brother of the mayor presided at the
committee. ta'
Lord SAN DON said, admitting that he had misundell to y
hon. member in the first instance, he must beg lea foe!
with reference to the brother of the mayor, that thereon,
such name on his committee. As this allegation had 1)0110fi
be unfounded, he hoped that the hon. member would 11berAt
ture be so confident in his statements. The hon. ariree,7,o
Wiltshire had asserted that great numbers of the old tbe
would not take the bribery oath. Then, he would as'ite
o#i
member, how it was possible for them to have voted? opol
elucidate the object for which the bribery oath was Peet
It was introduced merely to retard the poll. That Ateri
however, defeated. A sufficient number of the old ce oce)
come up, and did take the oath. Indeed, the only ill:bier '
knew in which it was refused was by a party on the 0 of
ics
and his refusal was given amidst the acclamations co f
whom he came to support. It had been said that theo
tion had improperly appropriated certain extensivcbe
their own purposes ; that was a misrepresentation. ;lot, tt
- . .
9f the a° 4,,

alded to-weie la out or imroiement of t.. tei #
report stated
that id
L3oo,fooothe arisingp from the dock e o o,li
been misapplied. That was impossible, for the moue), P
tually laid out according to the provisions of an act Tot Co
merit. On the present occasion it was desirable to)/
false impression on this subject should be removed tbi,
public mind; and that those who were to deal with .00, be
tion should not come to a decision with prejudiced n 1 tbC
always believed that the corporation of Liverpool inaueloPt,
use of the public funds; and he did not think that theYtyli
guilty of any malversation whatsoever. The works olref
caused to be constructed were of the most splendid (t.etbef
It would be almost more agreeable to his feelings tiel
panelled those even that were the enemies of these Parfetct
referred the different matters to them, because theyto 0:Ij#
quainted with the subject, rather than submit then oe
nal wholly unacquinted with it. One of the first the vro'
should be to direct the committee to inquire into toemit
ings of the last election. They ought not to take
rights of a considerable number of electors,_ not beco3orefl;
were more guilty than others, but because they were raocciric
others. He did not approve of a tribunal of such .019 i
as that now called for, which was to examine alleetVilll
general a nature as those which the hon. member o,r oeviii
proposed. That hon. member had said that the 13 rf
formed him that a very good case could be made out'cotslll
man were not in possession of all the facts and doctolls#o
before the lawyer, so that he might satisfy his ovoikel,/
would perhaps find in the end, that the statement of to
was not worth a penny. (Hear, hear.) The nobl*.lis)l
observed, that now, having obtained a reformed eti4l
which was calculated to put an end to all such Praiie
house ought not to occupy itself with ripping up old grocfrii
If there were any complaints to be urged as to they P,6
in the last election, that question ought to be trie
grounds, and not to mix it up_ with antecedent 017th't
which it had no connection. What was the opinion Yei,
William Shepherd on this subject ? In a letter 10'0)0Y,
lished on the subject that rev. gentleman confessed t_oefo
self had been for many years mixed up in election 1'4,104
that though, as those who knew him would easily viiefi el
had never taken a bribe, he could not deny that oWete''',/
he and others had subscribed for carrying on coot„01,
tions had been applied, in many instances, for the 'a bil4)
bribery to others; could he, then, be asked put 0,13 be
tical face and prosecute others for Factices whientiess,r
had sanctioned ? He concurred with the rev. gel' abo'
he thought that it would be wise and prudent to let, #ll° ,jb°
long. past, and so unlikely to recur, be again ma°`' oc,
of discussion. se sP,
Mr. BI N sox regretted that the time of the hooeftAaw
taken up with this
.question at a moment when thee ttli
many much more important matters to engage its 11,00b1 eft
there was a question of bribery charged against 004,4 fel',t
nicipal officers, it might be a fit subject for investilvtlle
committee on clrporations; but the inquiry as to tpiPpe;
question of bribery was different. If they sent. ,001a,'0
question to a committee, were they to examine %toile $42
oath ? He presumed not. If they were not, 114't ti)e
his experience in such matters, venture to say tholosei,e
not come to any satisfactory conclusion. But said Old'
mittee should affirm that bribery had existed, wo`loeo 01)°,
be ready to disfranchise that large number of fre'rioll 011'
examination at the bar? He believed that an} esetfcy
membered what took place in the case of Ealbe
great expense to which the public had been put--sco°``
of the proceedings, and the unsatisfactory resolt,,Lediut"; rt,
much disposed to have a repetition of such a protc4d be,
these circumstances, and thinking that no case " at Yr
out to show the expediency of such an inquiry bet
should feel it his duty to oppose the motion.
0. inelljpe
Mr. WssoN said that the argument of the "001 Wip
Worcester, if good for anything, would hold „ever boj
an inquiry in any case of alleged corruptiont_P,,,,rtan!,ol
namely, that the house bad other and more 'Lig fair.7re,
to occupy its attention. That, however, was
the case made out by the hon. member
was not an election petition ; it was not an a oorgerg I,
the return of the noble lord (Sandon ;) it was aot op
bribery, which had been practised for Year.is; but .0%-clis,
election of the chief magistrates of that t00...4 iu ado
election of members to serve for the borook.fll;cen o#oo
To him it appeared that a sufficient case ha wottiucajo
warrant an inquiry by a committee up sta:vieep add
forauegatv 0,;
impossible to read. the evidence which b it waS•
subject, and allow the matter to rest where
allegat.if
punish the guilty ; and if false, to defentre to hiinth th
trueM LorO'fCalosNe,NtEhLeL
itnhqoeuigryht,otuhgaht wt
:3”ebtheerse:riiid va.citettro.—oittoole
were unjustly accused. The case appea, n
igtrwo sasse simtonlth
wa
das ljerr;lov et.fr tie r:CfriY.
deed, even those who denied the necessity_
gros, 11 /0
bribery ible
andp aeses
r uv ep
rt
not attempted to deny the
.existei.ince of tile
the briber ',l,rovt
Let that corruption be punished.wbbeoto „gel/
deo- co
of Waitati°ll 1
P There was no • tatUto
bribed.o
ver thosTe The refusal
badb of
ef the
oinstqguuirifty",ounldd

- - -
ew,e, and if such a statute could exist, it could
p eutis case, where the crime had continued air
til:a4eat time. Let it be understood that iu supp,
bietlifer inquiry no imputation was meant to be (
(andon ) it was cast on those electors
guilty • ' !orkosi •
rlirueptiimonplzsiethhaergheodu,sealti,d)
Nsd.uhejrues.tiitrsTexiiir
,suerated by so many circumstances. It the p
4;tiserl felt that they were innocent, they would I
OilirY• It was no proof of their innocence tha
ils of evading it.
40 °I:4 W. LENNOX denied that his noble fries
41,14 t) intended to throw a shield over bribery in
toilti°tll. lie regretted extremely that the bony
t,rw Y of Wilts had felt it to be his duty to has e
lion Ward this question. He thought the valual
:::ill,,,n'e could be better employed than by rakini
-teselsoofflb3Ooth. t
hie' es
itthtionuggmhte tmhbeerfunds of the co!
il_esrsdiposed of than by paying. the expense;
,i:e,, arify occur in this investigation. During
13 "Ils Uo imputation of corruption had been n
during the las
C't rauderate ; they were open to the inspectio:
tilarsr, and of course had there been the slightest
Ito ge of bribery, the same spirit that had pro
* hitbd not have been wanting to have promoted a
4::hicir_cl...llo,Reraphiobseecre.otdhi eicitmuhseoito.aionrgn, , because• he felt it wa
tar lush to punish the innocent for the guittY.;
wao,
bisect 64 persons who had never offended
right
add: tp ht
ao:
till i
e1:11):
es thatof tills
.e 3
oR: i,eri lef oehrmmi
whene dnaßetoihsolmtielfhr
eheav would
dtf.
isooi
rvur.weelopdr
irofpuroori nktc?teyedraeosn_rlot welle et.
i
hallorneryshire in the last session, "that the
I would o
trailleil'llB4tsfil'ltt'3gheintheaelllectors." The effect had been pre
fat °ree of example, and he felt assured that it
quel:.k.ir the cause of freedom of election to pu
Ithi Leform Bill, so many hon. members had
Ise.
sc; had been most openly and unblushing y bt
Apd 1 ji• WILLoUGHBY could not concur with qat::4l•aed member for Dublin, that,
the 11: hoetos
tegiesivdo' liscl?tallooldtrien,aidaalli select
seternlielbt chuuteit
tribunals.
ycaobimsa,smi
ssiietifee
The motion
hist
mwc committee
Ist
irowni_tintwp.eeroeonotuu:poltt
would
WhFllt, and in practice dangerous kb
the d. IS the case ? One class of electors plarsasyb,yw,
la
'strand'. tby fill of another c.
It' a bill 'seinen l' • which in eftec
ka,, ! of pains and penalties
tihito°4llll4.7:ll,alrYee
riayef
lee politicalur
oins
sapuocwhevra generalto theoabnj classobjection
t one
fionif,
it
teeilierne
ulleteki4tboadd.tfimes disfranchise
to a system of proscriptio_cp
:, it
1t3:4
.111 a,
4:
os:
t,,, ,
t.oay;il
:a 0
pfutirs minesi
vi rvria nelee,orgpcfsenoi
sroit,sohieofi
santt hhneheedpoeotnalthershatceeytt. roa,istasw.n oadfir
r.
thel
this
hclil..that9ste sdetenmhoaorpt; uaarbie, Tel i
.105 i,.1 ,ell Pasiotis are too apt to. run
rahe-'ll excited 0 etiuon is sign
7500
~,, • ne petit .
lehillselia-ut; another pon signe .
d by
;h. pro ding
be fatal to the quiet of
, ther , Ks must .
as stated 1
khle e nave been corporate abuses,
oration f
Itiei4l44ereber for Ipswich, there is a corp
The
ver that may enter on such inquiry. g'
th, 'of the pres tion is clearly allegvi m
ire elect. remembers ,
% "as of to serve .in parliame
taus,eectors whom it is sought to disfranchise 1
high,
e i
3 art:
tivehs the labourer; and hard working men.;
1,140'01, who gain their political rights byal
gliba ,ho
as ancient as it is constitutional
,705 t,,,! lab householders clause of the reformt.n..
t 0 1
viaciett;il
to:a:at seutihbxeilineobt
loetibsiti. e(
Lcrt looiaodanrel
es
cio—lortgi t hvnrieilattc
on belowofi
pnhaogepc
ueppiroeatariuttrijoginrii_.
roc
tt4lttNiev
ieep, ,
..,,rtittti, 4
te.ba. I .i
4t,
so it
inpvieretarel I,se,):olstOehlei would
'1!
atil
tf:toti
oi
it 1
Is
e4e;aeottieel:e,aetar troasrsoafo sought tiohedi constitutionso,ctseoinir,be ne
cinducement
iosfbreia.
thisnn
nct town.hhohlauiteusdedutoce).willm se_
teri
;(
,:- I'.
4:lciet;,. issues,:br,::(l.
tats
es: t
onalirle,,ontowrhtbtheiozaornb.alrocefAm
nAatr
the
seereeowt
hteo,evel nete
hcyptetilo.convut
iepntmoudbsroahsdtoout
attack
households
)1
na:i
Can
exercise an
denied
, ;1.;I:
tpt:g
raesasti
gran:tassrtits.o lufoi.uotefr: cot
hatborhneueins:sooe:rt t
p_hbe_dent
o'evffine. ekeltnB3ouoawl:? oßnlet
;1:4: 4.
1 11:ed,Pfet
o:ti 1
104):1:51 4-1:: luri I:11- ''.Bl:ei
si°1:1; l'eet'e:thoher roreearaulteilksOcYtect admitted)eict cll interested
gtst heieortaenhetvwers idthhhtcr
ha:li cvetnil, dhestaateonttirisiohohestdkeewcenstplh: heaolooeerartfseiccnilqeiaixtoetcfsrotitaiuhni
~,k -ar the b ,* •
.11
rt
i:t
ik:
has l I I,oteLue
e,,ti
Ithytel,d.ytertzt
1.
ot
40011
,11.
underie,
,i
e:t.ske,ohof .
..
7,,1
netboeuiteepeeou
It
trnr
sfrnsn
Itootuihsr
estpoetmeetrueepauaetrptsenhoittial
iesiraeovaii.
are
,ceelu:oeycanirushundsaasattlteyeerintdcgtrtouleo. ehelst
ineidatgsoreghtendbiaLtmyiudn.
eeois refttehptt
eihihyur
sea:.
llis
wthr. elector:imrcseti.i
exercise coursealted
tout' -% reo
14‘,se h. rt to a committee under
d the infereuce
144 ho not been
fordfollowe, an .
iltleeleeertB4ll:iblae:sli?Llt irlss oafr ea
judicialthe .oin nature
h s of the p
;14414°14e to make up the lac
e as it is unc
'lt the 4 Ilew tribunal, as dangerous
tiLhkiitocg°eltthtleiert, ql 4°,11. friend,
a -m he constitution of its ordinary com_ 1
v.,4 that
„,
will _
Ittallip 'all be done e btyh e law ofo dapis
ca
the Grenvi
itti
tld reliance
onwhosequestion,
tnioounr,
faonrdoirnateggarlinty he
tittithi. 4 414oijgea n: si 111 rhY.e l'hcommitteeeord
Lit or
Ptecedents. Attendiaubn:
lit e who 11 %LaYlng m y in to decide.
lotta bribery andsac
t the ear nothing may come
:1,414:111',11 elranootlisosna
titllll4,Piiri on weaknessround of principle, t.be meet'
t, qe,Qrs should be
lb, 1, and the of the case or its m
tt,ll, 4t .
4tto g
side
itlseta,higo:
ae mtenji
gossip—heron
ufnmose
tet
botafebncreandfnaosfocarwoso.in‘oruvtr nwlhcdio.hl,
nt
not
cacoh(:lnt:urrdwcsae:
o"nnil
ttlinood,ti
hteeeef_csj:.
question existing amonts,7!
't.t As the • not what were
ckytt,t, e real question, and . .
its :At,,'),f particular pit ase were
I f a &J.*the hou,
th '4;41(1 inquiry, was the duty of
~,
e cit it
titsW li , prevent such practices iii future. uy
iosdrerntohtpatftiootrhn eionuslry
jI
e 411.(itid the. circumstances
statedufficient to war
(ftre44!ha were in his opinioi
s to a select cot
it iva:lll4,the matter for inquiry
11.11:tilziti
tshstellionceaneadsideaatse ;infonLe prosecuting
woe
• I_ ,ate election
that
I:
is
aildmissiondeftlee
lienN.'l;•„n,Y,'"Y the enormous expense whichoss
pia
if
nrrthht
hei sepk mantisairnt di
thee,s
! 1 htt uo
rtewha.eaSsell,llo(
:40:k:rt.:: t
e, Pd: I
he44t iell :,:tit'l 11
14ttilacot It.'eer°i:::tiigl Ini:::ot object
bb":tdeilli:ecreiaSl:tdeel lesPoiNeoldoin:llu lafreoerolscitftdtfherenbr_rdr.ailorbreendi
iletaenbrrvhdc_eegeehha:sr:
Itevls r‘?... -iloergoonesmax:,at‘evli'.ltt motion.hdotheh4nyeo 0
otvtotr the
aatgi. sr:ss.
for
0,
Ittriiunai
Dil withrliiPt,youhostrei i I
eeh
hßht the
itt4o:l:,he: of the corasreulactnd She du
440411;`)te" he
the noble lord.(Sanekint) was in
' " kik -I't why the inqu' y should take place. ,
. , r
,i
ccia."'aciiix WeorrEsat.
pay was that of the
it lookedt
4114; LME satd that that was impossible—h(
Wl)4, .as the noble lord concerned, for he
btitt:lord knew, but it :as: of
kuciivn that tin
1.4„N and agents acting and it was to the e?
to I'm elections and
4„. o t cm. o pro:
thr,'llcurred he alluded, 'when he said it 'was'
ti‘: co upped
be. covered by E 1,400.
xev rasst of:
what
ht oat other.
: he
sa:vi
btdtahi
in:
saetgt—tahst: hehe
vdec
Nall„,lele amnesty of
141.1"Ilt.:littid‘'hIlretIPSfsi3aurn°aNhinD'ys°c sa mentioned,e
s(le lat
as
WkihiCik.alue:dtidabt:albe'o'atneehf(nslifeadbmPealleilineenil:jeeilcin-glupoollisuigrntity:lhienat hatuthtfetauhhotteufarherdhill'
n
141,4 to go into it.
kisth,,ll. GLADSTONE said, I cannot wonder at tl
bighir,oon. members have declared their intentioi
al tr,
hoe
I perceive the false impressions they
id' Ole existence of bribery at the late election
o •
il. friend, the member for Middlesex, 11. E
a nc.ryoiedl
tloccbnhaoeeenmacnm:ooymttii.
httttb—tt
committees
eeea:
end
. eiemntetanhs,:oar",

int'tent
ar

lose who had recently received thttotll'
ting as they chose. They were
ise they all pleased to vote one IleaPibf
. member amounted to this—the 4'
a constituent body voted alone iva;rloi;
bised. The noble lord here refera fr,
which the house had been relies' 171 e
on election petitions. The prese'ro
reason for adopting it, that the he3,ttrP,
meted public business that it Was "14
Luse ; and that the decisions of theeoe
I not give satisfaction, as they
nd accurate. To remedy these 133,°0°
isle Act was introduced. And' Of
Lion
act over the seats efiii?
,tion was refersed to a Comm tee
id that tribunal was further purl
mpartial by striking off the named,
e, or could be, in any way intere to;
t place, the members were swos(j
I protection was the power to C
ne them on oath. Now, he ir,,
visions and protections did the b°111,(111',
d the tribunal to which he wisP,t,olll
? A select committee, such as -00_4"
or, would not have the power to e' f
It was clear to him that none °b4
rown round the seats of member° -071
e advailable in this case. What Wet ovf,,
isked, of ripping up, before a seleepoil;
rable transactions that were all toty
ie corporation of Liverpool for the
i, he admitted, were very strong' "tot,
funded? If it were possible to 501
by the hon. member all the tidy?,
esent mode of deciding election ybee
objectionable ; but what cod ° ;ed 'a
than a tribunal such as that proflie,!;i
ch should have the power to ineallr/0
corruption, but into all that were of
20 or 30 years ? If the prayer
they would have the bar of that
ietitions. (Hear, from Mr. O'Obetis,
,eer of the hon. and learned meArnte3te,o
?posed meant, that the hon. an. 00"1,
statute of limitations by which „Ida
lad occurred in former times 001 ''.
iry. (Mr. O'Connel—No, none'lll
ne the hon. and learned member
3°
rases of supposed corruption, 1 04
i. But this was not all that n'" 1311 i
Lof the petition were agreed 01.4
o inquire into the-general histor)4l"„,
vas alleged, bad existed for a 10144
This was required for the mere (Los 0(
ids of their judges against those 'lbr
ie previous to the matter beingLer
Lie had understood an hon. moue fly Pit
se objected to the petition recensor
ne of the mayor of Liverpool yin 01
't4
1, he had not made that assern elert/
ier of the mayor presided at the of
admitting that he had misunder°t 00%!
rst instance, he must beg leave fay
brother of the mayor, that there ton,
,mittee. As this allegation bad Pot Loy
sd that the hon. member would° ber
Li
, his statements. The hon. teed
-e free ,o
I that great numbers of the old tbo to}
bery oath. Then, 1.1 he would ask co
)ssible for them to have voted? fou
✓ which the bribery oath was Pect'ji
ely to retard the poll. That ohlter6
k. sufficient number of the old c°lso
C
the oath. Indeed, the only (05bet
refused was by a party on the ot
of
given amidst the acclamations orrf
sort. It had been said that the 00,
ppropriated certain extensiYer4o
hat was a misrepresentation. ;loc. y.
it for the improvement of the doog
/0,000 arising from the dock e 5 Ai)
it was impossible, for the moil, p 1,16
ng to the provisions of an act lot e/
nt occasion it was desirable 'pigs/
its subject should be removed (if
those who were to deal with t...(0,
to a decision with prejudiced ro,'" oiej
se corporation of Liverpool road had
; and he did not think that theYnjell
ition whatsoever. The works sop IL'
ed were of the most splendid ietbei
11
ire agreeable to his feelings 12 rtjes)
tat were the enemies of these es 00'4
matters to theta, because they 0:ito
ect, rather than submit thou ec
A with it. One of the first I)l42eter
ie committee to inquire into thea,,ofi,
ion. They ought not to take psis 'OF
le number of electors,
. not heenoreri
others, but because they were Voctiffri
Lpprove of a tribunal of such
which was to examine allegansilLl fl
use which the hon. member for elil!
member had said that the la 'oq,
y good case could be made outitiot
sssion of all the facts and doer 01;54
that he might satisfy his owo,l,ol'fi
the end, that. the statement of lord
y. (Hear, hear.) The nobl.ne
laving obtained a reformed Lel
o put an end to all such Pi
-rieteeiti
,upy itself with ripping up old 4
plaints to be urged as to the forit LO,/,
sat question ought to be trier' oterb
iix it up with antecedent In/ 04
etion. What was the opinion P;
this subject ? In a letter wl3/,',411,
hat rev. gentleman confessed i'l;tter;4
y years mixed up in election bellerb,
vho knew him would easilY oef elf
be, he could not deny that Itytell,
scribed for carrying on cou'ourr. )1/
, in many instances, for the 'O%)
ld he, then, be asked put on
e others for
.practices whie",teovilg
concurred with the rev. geo7choi
ld be wise and prudent to let the
,iti°
rely to recur, be again Inv' 0001 te
e,
etted that the time of the hoto or • ois
stion at a moment when thett,oo
ortant matters to engage its 5(0(01/ or
f bribery charged against are'oi/1) /e 5
,f
ht be a fit subject for investigtlLß
Lions; but the inquiry as to
ras different. If they sent oiittlia, 'to
Ltee, were they to examine sretitclol
not. If they were not, In't thc
matters, venture to say th°,oo..e V,
actory conclusion. But stillj pt/J''
bribery had existed, o°l'oo 000 A
ie that large number of fre„ersoo,ol.K
r? Ile believed that anY
pdp
lace in the case of EraPthe 'lO,l ey)
i the public had been put"we°' /
d the unsatisfactory resultreecliog, 0,1
a repetition of such a projeola
nd thinking that no case at Pre 1
iency of such an inquirY
t '1
to oppose the motion- i.„O, theee
at the argument of the hon,
top
r anything, would holel,,!;wever he t
of alleged corruption,. Pfloitau'iiielj
e had other and more In fair
I. That, however, was "iviltsto-0(.,
r the hod. member for negation 0
Ltition ; it was not alargyi
? lord (Sandon ;) it Was not
als0;n(/)
een practised for ears; but
iagistrates of that town
.hie de #1
o serve foi the borouf beerola
too,
at a sufficient case, hnt was! tr„je
a committee np stairs- adduc.
mevatteenrcteo wriessitchwhheared bietewo.
coo)
nega 1 pro
ni.ght, that whether the aioto--(tei,
tory ought to be pan clear ot"pe i
dif false, to defen dto hinlth
The case app eare don na' rffl
iss over. It was prosractised;ta
corruption had been of the
denied the necessity ross cod
a the g ice
y the existence
e punished in the briber 35 vi
be t° thr° a'?
A' the inquiry would , Aeorve
sea most guilty, and Who
its
was no statute of la i

it ' it 01.) and if such a statute could exist, it could not be pleaded
1)5
ell case, where the crime had continued almost up to the
tio: it time. Let it be understood that in supporting the mo-
hi, lolrar inquiry no imputation was meant to be cast on the no-
iNiit -- k.andon;) it was cast on those electors only who were
NJ. He implored the house to do justice in a case where
robo,ar!'uption was charged, and where its existence was cor-
c4,er,le,d. by so many circumstances. If the parties now ac-
itlnillett that they were innocent, they would be anxious for
cle'si_'!Y• It was no proof of their innocence that they were so
desirous of evading it.
dons In LLNNOX denied that his noble friend (Lord San-
rs,tl2llterided to throw a shield over bribery in opposing this
roitt;',ll- He regretted extremely that the hon. member for the
tst.,,,„`Y.,ol\yilts had felt it to bells duty to have again brought
11,47 coo thts question. lie thought the valuable time of
.the
tare;
,1!ld be better employed than by raking up the gr!e_v(,-
111),tt:sr:;1;030sd
01-If.eththaonught -the funds of the country could b -
tlQc.oaa '1) occur in investigation.thisbyp a paying th e expenses
thweh
threeilcah!.t„w o u
xl d.
pe,3,, s no imputation of corruption had been made.
.Ihe e
41,st" of both the sitting members during the last election were
i:or.sr;
oudiebrraitheLyt,hethyewesaremoepespn to the inspection of hon. mein-
itotill not have been wanting
chat and of course had there- been the slightest opening for a
justiq' oppose the motion because he felt it was an act of in-
to ihraitv ethpartomhaodtepdrama petition. He
step
ita.eeLto punish the innocent for the guilty; and by this mea-
qiiserl persons who had never offended would be disfran-
,ielLt , In conclusion, he would merely add that he would
4 ..°
110 man in his desire for purity of election and he was.
1-11!)PY that the Reform It'll had worked so well in that respet.
)40ret'lembered the argumentsi of the right hon. member for
f 4tgome . .
l'ailtbi . rYshire in the last session, "that the example of dtise-
kilid sl.eg the freemen of Liverpool would operate on h
file f'.ol the electors." The effect had been produced without
vary ere Of example, and he felt assured that it was not necFs-
t!Titil:ir tile cause of freedom of election to punish the delin-f
ILe /teef„s °f N, when at that period, and up to the. passing o
-4ich C,lll Bill, so many hon. members had seats in the house
Bir ii`t. been roost openly and unblushingly bouht.
tld 1, • WILLoUGHBy could not concur with the honourable.
(144-ia„rile,(l member for Dublin that, admitting the necessity
1'040'417, a select committee' was the proper tribunal. He
DoBe, .()11t9d, as the basis of his argument, that, for all p:ars-
tthe ~,,c7s4uodicial enquiry, a select committee of
tedetiLt. 1 11
.tribunals. The motion. would tehsitsablish a bad
tt 114 is it. and In Practice dangerous without any good result.
e di 4: '"e ease ? One class of electors pray, without ceasing,
4, a4r.thehisetnent by bill, of another class by an ex part facto
tki(11101,- olu Of pains and -penalties, which, in effect, will give the
NO in bad timer
4,t
l' him disfranschei
bCt.'")44s. e Hereat.eiic Political
i ej
as
objection in limine. Can 'the
olnlapog-weenreratol the e class of electors who peti-
Tch vague and indefinite inquiries ? May
as
tts9 a
ts
hye stemr andof
thatp roscri p
throughon ?th
eoi
inquiries
uc.ilrai
es
ss
t-ifOltslsnittee of this house.° ' Will it not be to expose the
'ln- Pa it; Privileges of the electors of this empire to the chances
tTije ssarv;'
of Liverpool,- one
_party is arrayed against another in
It, wips... and that at the close of a contested elec-
It% eksii'" Passions are too apt to run high; and party feelings
&Nth Y "'cited. One petition is signed by 3000, prayintgadris-
:-tleh ,Isseinent ; another petition signed by 7500, the con r y:
k.tir.r4(ichheeeardrifenorgbesitepniswuiset be fatal to the quiet of any town. It,
corporate
44,,,, tt°4:,:o fetihseaett may enter
tshue such
he abuses,l.snga uir
y a s.
committeeon
nowo ti r-
The gravamen, how-
-1/44 0 1.9 e prese.;tepme.tiet.irosn, is clearly alleged oral-practices at
qte.., ections
of
b to serve in parliament. Who,
;',llis th s vinora it is sought to disfranchise? They are the
411 L'ert) ' e labourers and hard working men of the town of
o'l,', 'il"l' w, he gain their political rights by a labtaorkiomugs saewrvaiy-
iii -". the£le as ancient as it is constitutional, .
im.; householders clause of the reform bill, one of its
hr s. r.4,Usibl
tiCtip• t .e objections,—that below a certain. line no man can
t
414:tYtitair4,41.4),Iinaupsofloirticaall.ecporgivhitltiegoen.
ofThe et.itioners state, that
"4 of Z the best mode of recognising popular g
pop u a r rights,l buth he
the
~IBPolila, -Alrrterk.)ool would be to. strike oil at one blow the. most
of Rate °I the constitution in that town. The petitioners
housel4 et ',as an inducement to this house to proceed, that many
, ettors --
'4I 4.4°lders
b no inducement. The7are
'Flight to. be disfranchised will still be voters its
the '„reetae,', , Is, sir, can e
11tfe:eole „':!Nv,110 are also ten pound householders, out of 3180,
Ots;celess'`nb.er. Are we then. to attack
Can
hly
we
ee
aploleo‘Nr, and
e
(4- rer. ire Portion of the elective body?
Itticl.,4? ( keluen to become the victims of a powerful
inquiry-, iad'err, hear.) Are we to pursue an endleest
e I'eti • l'te as it must be, when we know, on the showing__
.1
tver tiorler .
rei , that s, that it cannot be effectual ?
la kg b Practices were resorted to in 1830. c •
Be
itissosaid,Cahnonwo-
fivestie:eirdie
,eg:aeises,i,ll,:ed for this? Is it not notorious-that at that
Pari4e at mass of householders were excluded ? and that
is‘rtib,.. di a, A (I,eliky interested in the choice of ablefireupenrecseen(taan-
.tteoper coon that occasion, strive to exercise an n
Gird ta bin admitted) which. the law denied directly. The
It bra jo
ti corrected that vice, and this question, in fairness
to fnot iscse,e4 Must rest on what took place at the itarastnesloeectti!oolnis.
hand
a , to rake together the ashes of by-o
11-'4 144 constructive charge against the. electors. Five
Itsthou-
elett'illetabe
ll' eent Inca are interested deeply in this
liet I°4. oPposite say there were p mal- ractices at the late
ijuestion. The
Why ar state is as flatly denied by others. -Amid this contra-
ilot eot NI tilen. he wanted light. If there were mal-practices,
tice,eoaterb_rue the constitutional course of petition ? Why
lith With :Lore a tribunal constituted byhlai.v
(las aialcofuarhteotifejhuss;
colj aot reroper powers to exercise t..e ju lc.
This
Li
ti:i., has to a committee under the Grenville act?. .
is irresistible.
trit.,, t. 4 40...e0t been followed, and theinferen
of the ciewtitioners, and
flux a'.l!
wtotniake up for the !aches
14,tlie ilialte , tribunal, as dangerous as it is unconstitutional ?
defer Fiiii,e•:/,onjections are to. the committee itself. This house
thia'ets i 4 ti:ele matters of a judicial. nature ;
mth.e„reeesa.re
Erardeicryail
that Constitution of its ordinary coin lit
4(.;4Bhire ;call be done will be done by the hon. member for
l'eliaa'o'n w„hose honour and.integrity he. had a ingst pe
ttP• 4 bias • t he committee will be comprised of parties haovn-
,44..t'kJtidge4ssor°ll, the question, for or against—a. bad qualification
that or th.,, J__,ltrY• The ordinary committees are boundlblymnsoe
%,,„. liea:-,,_`ceoents. Attendance cannot be enforced. _
-'4e Loe b • • t hear the end; and perhaps
''t
WllO
h egiailing
may
no
• •cl The membe
.rs
likt4e „, ear nothing may come in tane e. . .
10114,°Culittee cannot be sworn, no evidence can be
vit ot. er the sanction of an oath. Grant the committee • a
liket to °l4jeting gossip—he could not call it evidence—mayt
yrayf
441i11°11.?.reitehedr'—a perfect chaos, which. will dexfytrtaheet aebeiei
140,Zlit to II s the member for Wiltshire? to e.
4,14 Pule to a
f the
t 444:iulries on the ground of principle, the inetp.ciency o _ .
just and fair conclusion. He objected to
li)sa it),and the weakness of the case or its merits, and would
t,t t, pet,,plotion.
Nl,' InOtilSoN said that the question was, whether a case I,ol,ttdiribery and corruption existing amongst a large )ody
t,,AtivZ,re should be sent- for inquiry to a select committee.
c,14N4 the real question, and not what were the motives or
Itl :Qt' particular individuals. If a case were made out ha
tlie *(tektuch inquiry, it was the duty of the house to interfere,
V.b.,eille 1 prevent such practices in future. The notoriety of
II l'hi?,,nd. the circumstances stated by the hon. member for
iil,4,,ltrht Were in his opinion sufficient to warrant the house
it it-amvilliN•he matter for inquiry to a select committee. The
lif: 4 hi'kt did not reach a case of this kind, and, therefore,
the t,-* tic stlllect for investigation in the manner proposed.
*clietir ma4,„kuPported the motion. The parties who presented
en,ity twaa lere deterred from proseeutmg the in_q y
datthhaast
,heet,"e; bui,Y,L9L the enormous expense which wouldautitretnh
. barged4lob-,, at was no reason why the gross practices
to 4'" thaPl.: should be allowed .to pass with impunity.
fliie
th--,4tu111, th,--„'s. hon. friend, the member for publin,ht would
Sriks`ttti,,-Ib.:'eleae he had. given, that an inquiry mig ins°ti:
tilie tlecesstiti se of bribery on the par
Ile pill the candidate i for it was
t of a losing, as well as'
eeil NIA the°ll9 ease as in the other. In the present case
At, (111„te,, , aunlission of the r•
to"aent 'l,°Y the noble lord.Sandon,) vas lin itself a strong
t,„ , e no le 1 inquiry
tt toil
th wl the should take place.' He would beg
whether £14,000
..was
SANoori „' as
had been alleged.- ,;vas the whole expense
tlitiqg he had t as understood to reply. that. the
whichonly
wasexpense
s
th ° PaY Iva that of the hustings,
44 e sum rnetic s
Air 1% H 1 1a • 'led'
4(4 ever of the *1:144j 43 theE noble th4t that was impossible—he did not mean
Witte lard k
steN
,1141,14,ejoeutiraxreciN IvießoaTlTlu:cestind,,uer
coerrleord was concerned, for he had no doubt
it
wasNsv
i:owfewllhkatnohive
nhatdhsattattehde,reasmf.earreacsotmhe.
CY andilie agents acting and it was to the expenses which
and was of opinion that '
irt,isuld be ceveredeupburyoyozfii:eoond
.bheeensaid 'it 'was impossible that
14 plltlll'.at'enilenctisotny_,s looked upon the reform act as a
4t ?; in at
No
ttl,.!k;sll.tqp.pol sub,sequ the house ought net
°f ah transactions that had occurred pre-
wil 1,, 2-t- any case should be •
to the inquigri;:etahaotfhaandybceCrniurntsidtia.-
e out in future, he would be
)41, to go into it.
t'llittiyi:r. GLAnsTorin said, I cannot wonder at the votes which
„..lallt onmembers have declared their intention of giv.inF.tshis,
LI. t() the Whene I perceive the false impressions they have mimeo
.ip ho existence. of bribery at the late election for Liverpool.
4,
friend, the member for Middlesex, is not sufficiently

credulous to believe that my noble friend is correct in stating
the expenses on that occasion not to have exceeded £1450, be-
cause, I presume, he thinks no one but himself can conduct an
affair in an economical manner. Now, as I know that he is
fond of looking into accounts, I can, to-morrow, show him the
account rendered by the treasurer of the noble lord's committee,
and I feel sure that Aiwa' satisfy his economical mind. It is not,
however, my intention to take up the time of the house or to
risk weakening the strong case that has been made out by my
noble friend, further than by saying, that there appears to me to
be a general misconception as to the existence of bribery and
corruption at Liverpool. We have been told, that from the
highest individual to the lowest, one and all, are corrupt This
is alleged in a petition that was presented by the honourable
member for Wiltshire, and such was the indignation excited by
it in Liverpool, that a counter petition was, in the space of forty-
eight hours, signed by almost 8000 individuals. I think, sir,
that some weight will be attached to that petition when I state,
that either 1350 or 1450, I forget which, of the persons that
signed it consist exclusively of clergy, magistrates, bankers,
merchants, and brokers ; and, therefore, that when we recol-
lect that of the 3000 who signed the petition presented by the
honourable member for Wiltshire, only 30 or 40 were persons
who frequent the principal commercial news-room in Liverpool,
at least equal importance is to be attached to the petition pre-
sented by the noble lord. The respectable part of the com-
munity spurn the charge that has been made against them.
Undoubtedly, sir, bribery and corruption did notoriously exist
at the election of 1830, but 1 contend that they might have ex-
isted any where else under similar circumstances. The right
honourable member for Manchester might have introduced a
similar system if he pleased among his constituents. I say, that
that election was the creature of circumstances, and was a most
extraordinary pioceeding from beginning to end. But, sir, my
main object in rising on this occasion was to answer the very
sweeping accusation of the hon. and learned member for Dub-
lin, whom I regret that I do not now see in his place, (Mr.
O'Connell was in another part of the house,_) against, what he
terms, the bribing cycle of the friends of Mr. Canning. The
hon. and learned member has, however, attempted to turn that
body to his own account, for he made an attempt, I am happy
Ito say an ineffectual one, to deprive me of a seat in this house,
by denouncing me to hose whose suffrages I sought, as the
spawn of a member of this corrupt cycle. (Hear, hear, hear.)*
But, sir, I am proud to say, that in no part of Ireland has
the honourable and learned gentleman less influence than in
the borough which I have the honour to represent. (Hear.)
He has stated that he recollects Mr. Wood, the late member
for Preston, declaring, in his place here, in 1831, that about 30
of the friends of Mr. Canning were in the habit of subscribing
large sums of money, for the purpose of procuring his return by
corrupt means, and that the patronage of the borough was vested
in these gentlemen. If the memory of the hon. and learned
gentleman, which I am inclined to think by no means unsound,
does not fail him, he might have added, that I stood up in this
house and flatly contradicted the statement made by the then
member for Preston ; but this does not appear to have suited
the purpose of the hon. and learned gentleman. I then as-
serted that there was no such distribution of patronage; that
the friends of Mr. Carmine. in general, undoubtedly diet recom-
mend to him persons to fill vacant offices ; and that such was
the best mode of enabling him to make a right use of his patro-
nage, by ascertaining who were most deserving of it. And,
sir, what is the fact? In 1812, when Mr. Canning was first in-
vited to Liverpool, he was out of office, and not likely to return
to it. The constituency of that borough was proud to obtain
him as its representative; and that motive could alone influence
it, as he had no patronage to bestow. I am, therefore, happy
to have it in my power to refute the allegations that have been
made against a highly respectable body of individuals, on whom
no 'suspicion ever rested to warrant such imputations.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that there existed so many reasons
why it was difficult to prove bribery before a committee, unless
the house assumed some of its ancient inquisitorial power,
that there would be no possibility in many cases of punishing
corruption. The Liverpool election of 1830 was confessed ou
all hands to have displayed one of the most scandalous scenes
of bribery that had ever occurred. He thought there was a
case for the appointment of a committee of inquiry, but that it
would be well to postpone naming it till a future day, when it
could be chosen by lot, a manner which he considered prefer-
able in the present instance to the ordinary practice of the
member moving for the committee nominating the members of
it.
Lord SANDON declared that if the committee were impar-
tially chosen, and only instructed to inquire into what had
occurred at the last election, he was ready to withdraw all
objections to the proceeding.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was of opinion, that if the elec-
tors had not resorted to their old practices at the last election,
the house ought not to notice what might have occurred ante-
cedently to that period. But if it should appear that there had
been corruption at the last election, let the parties be punished;
and, further, let the inquiry be then carried back, and embrace
what had occurred at former elections, with a view to probe
the corruption to the bottom.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed, that the noble lord's manner of
meeting his proposition was extremely fair. Ile should move
a resolution, instructing the committee to report the result of
the inquiries into the proceedings of the late election.
Colonel WlLLiams said it was natural to conclude that the
last election had been attended with bribery in like manner as
preceding elections, on the ground of the acknowledged cha-
racter of the borough.
Mr; SHEIL observed that a new question had been started
which differed from the motion first made, inasmuch as it
limited the inquiry of the committee to the late election.
Grampound had been disfranchised for corruption antecedent
to the election that immediately preceded the inquiry, and a
similar course was taken with respect to East lietford. lie did
not see the grounds upon which it was proposed to apply a
different rule in the case of Liverpool, and therefore wished
the inquiry to go further back than the late election.
Lord ALTHORP thought that there was no valid objection to
the proposed instruction, which was that the committee should
go into the proceedings of the late election, in the first instance,
and report the result of their inquiries to the house. But it
was not unconditionally intended to confine the committee to
the last election if there should appear grounds for going fur-
ther back. If it appeared, however, that there had been no
corruption since the household constituency was added, he
was of opinion that that circumstance ought to take the borough
out of the case ; but if, on the contrary, there was evidence of
bribery at the last election, then the inquiry could be extended
into antecedent tranctions in aggravation.
Mr. ATHERLEY was of opinion that where the old leaven of
corruption existed among the freemen, it was impossible for,
the reform of the constituency to work well, and that it was
therefore necessary, in order to strike at the root of the evil, to
institute a narrow inquiry into the question of corporate in-
fluence, with a view to the adoption of such a course as cir-
cumstances might appear to require.
Mr. GOULBURN objected to establishing a precedent for the
trial of election q.uestions before committees otherwise consti-
tuted than according to the provisions of the Grenville Act.
Mr. BENETT hoped that when the committee should have
once touched upon a case of bribery in the last election (assum-
ing the existence of corruption on that occasion,) it would be
permitted to carry the chain of corrupt proceedings back to
preceding elections, with a view to justify a heavy measure of
punishment.
The resolution for the appointment of a select committee to
inquire into the matters complained of in the petition of the in-
habitants of Liverpool (presented Feb. 21,) and to report the
result of their inquiries to the house, was then agreed to.
On the resolution that the committee do report, in the first
place, the result of their inquiries into the existence of bribery
and corruption at the last election for the town or Liverpool,
beine. put,
GOULBURN repeated his objection to the appointment of
a select committee.

Lord J. ltussxm. said that the ground' on which he had al-
ways been an advocate of committees of this kind was simply
the following :—he considered election committees under the
Grenville Act as extremely well calculated to decide questions
arising.between members returned and individuals claiming to
sit in Parliament, but not calculated to promote the general in-
terests and well-being of the electoral body.
Mr. GOULBURN observed, that the noble lord was not ac-
quainted with the operation of the Grenville Act, which did
not proceed to decide questions between individuals,
_ but to de-
termine as to the fitness of members returned, though petitioned
against by persons not claiming to be returned themselves.
Mr. Wasori said that the Grenville Act applied equally to
cases between man and man, and to those arising between
members returned and electors.

After a desultory conversation, in which Lord Sandon, Sir
E. Knatchbull, Sir J. Wrottesley, Lord Althorp, and Lord
John Russell took part, the motion was carried.
It was moved by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and carried, that the
said committee should be chosen by ballot—that the election do
take
.Place on Tuesday next,—and that the said committee should
consist of 15, 13 to be chosen by lot, and '2 to be named by the
house.