The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-06-10 00:00:00

►der-Lyne.
Mr. LIDDEI

I thong'.

pend writs.
Mr. BERNAL was of opinion that there were sufficient
_,....,

this case for an inquiry.
_ _SN thought that, for the honour of the house, an
iquiry should take place.
Sir H. PEEL said that no general rule could apply to these
...ases—each of which must be judged of upon its own merits.
He did not think that the case of Newcastle was as strong
as even that of Ipswich, and should therefore support the

Mr. WY

iue of the writ.
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the issue of the writ, on the
ound of the necessity of putting a stop to the payment of

tic y •
division. the amendment of Mr. Hume was nega-
.

Lived by a majority of 143 to 97.
Mr. HUME then suggested to the house. that instead of
• their time in this way occupied in discussions about
it would be

which it was not intended to suppress, it.
once to repeal all the laws against bribery, and per-
:lectors to sell themselves as they pleased, and to allow
io liked to purchase them. The vote the house had
3e to would countenance any bribery which might

one writ was then agreed to.
J. RUSSELL then moved for leave to bring in a bill
bribery and corruption in elections for m meber
His
aas representatives of the people in parliame.nt. s
.)111, he said, did not propose to check briery by increased
means of
"allies, but rather to stop it, by rendering the
'on more efficacious. His first proposition would tend
an end to compromises, to effect which he peat roposed
.at the parties asserting that bribery had taken plac any
election, should give in a list of the persons whom they charged
with receiving bribes. Those persons should be called upon
to defend their votes, and unless they could do so, they should
be disfranchised. He also proposed that a power of giving
indemnity, in certain cases, should be given to the election
committee, where the parties had made full disclosures, and
a power also of examining members, candidates, and their
agents. He proposed also to prevent the concealment of
bribery by the withdrawal of election petitions, and for this
purpose his bill would give power to the committee to report
to the house their belief that a compromise had taken place ;
in which case the house would give them authority to pro-
ceed as if the petition had not been abandoned d
if it should A solicitor
should be appointed to conduct the inquiry,
be ascertained that bribery had taken place, the committee
should have power to declare the election void, in the same
manner as if the petition had been prosecuted by the parties.
With respect to costs, he proposed that they should be
visited upon the sitting member, if he should be proved, by
himself or his agents, to have been guilty of bribery ; and in
other cases, he should propose that they should be visited on
the petitioners. When a petition should be presented, alleg-
ing extensive bribery, he proposed that it should be tried in
the same manner as an election petition, with the aid of a
solicitor. If bribery was very extensive in a borough, he
proposed that it should be disfranchised ; but to do this,
there was always difficulty in carrying the bill of disfranchise-
ment through parliament. He therefore proposed that the
inquiry should be conducted by a committee formed of mem-
bers of both houses of parliament. He proposed that this
committee should consist of seven or nine members—four
from the Commons, and three from the Lords, or five from
the Commons, and four from the Lords ; and that it should
'ded over by a peer, to be named by the crown for
purpose. He further proposed that the bribery oath
)uld be abolished, for it had no effect in putting a stop to
''le it too often superadded the crime of per-
. His last proposition was, that the
payment of any money to electors, or any members of their
family, whether as head-money, or whether under any other
denomination, should be held and deemed to be bribery, whe-
',ook place before or after the election.
Sir R. PEEL supported the motion of the noble lord, being
fully convinced that the proposed bill was a great improve-
ment on the bill of 1834, being much less encumbered, and
more likely to prove effective. The noble lord, however,
should take great care not to hold out temptations to candi-
dates, to throw the expense of those investigations on the
'lining to petition themselves, and getting an
general allegation of bribery. The right
..iaronet stated a number of other difficulties to be
~.arded against in legislating upon this subject, and alluded
to the unsatisfactory state of the law as respected treating
and conveying electors to the poll. He anticipated, how-
ever, much from the
'-vic bill now introduced ;
productive of much

oe pres

the practice, whi

D that of briber

ther it

or to make

good.
After some observations from 'Mr. M.Thalt
Mr. ROEBUCK suggested that hon. members should be
obliged to give a list of the expenses they had incurred during
the ele"tion to the committee, and to declare that they had
would not pay any other.
viscount SANDON apprehended that little would be gained
by adopting the suggestion of the last speaker. It would
prove a very inefficient check, if, indeed, a check at all ; as
might appear from the circumstance which he would vouch
for—namely, that his own election for Liverpool, when he
was first returned, did not cost him a single shilling, and his
expense at subsequent elections had not cost him more than
£2OO or £3OO on each occasion. It might be worth while to
consider whether it would not be better to stimulate the
lower orders of people especially to attend and give their
vote, which they often neglected to do for want of interest in
the election, by determining that at each election every one
who tendered his vote should be entitled to receive a sum,
say 55., which, though not sufficient to influence a man to
give a vote one way or other, for whig or tory, would have
the effect of making him appear at the hustings, and render
the representation of the place more respectable. As to the
project of constituting a jurisdiction out of members of both
houses, he foresaw it would have its inconveniencies, and he
should prefer seeing an address moved and carried in that
house to the Crown, praying that a special commission
should be issued in all cases of elections, where prima facie
bribery had been proved, to try the validity of the election
by the common law. The trial of the election in this way
would have a good effect in the town or county where the of-
fence was reported to have been committed. The public
would learn in this way to consider bribery as a positive
crime against society.

not and

Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHREY presented a petition from
three hundred and sixty constituents against the proposed
alteration in the import duty on boots and shoes.
Mr. THORNELY presented a petition from two thousand
six hundred inhabitants of Liverpool, in favour of an equali-
zation in the duties on colonial and foreign sugar ; also a
petition from two hundred grocers and coffee dealers of the
same town, praying for a reduction of the duties on foreign
coffee and sugar ; and a petition from certain grocers of
Preston, in Lancashire, to the same effect.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from the ropemakers
-.ninners of Liverpool, against the proposed reduc-
' --. on foreign cordage. To lie on the table.
proposed an equalization of the duties on
I colonial timber, as an amendment to the duties
- government. The hon. member contended
duties were a great loss to the people of this coun-
.c they were of no use to Canada, and their utility to
ipping interests was too inconsiderable to warrant
:ge an exaction from the people of England, indepen-
itly of their being compelled to use an inferior timber.
Sir H. DOUGLAS said he could not concur with the bon.
and learned member who had just sat down in the opinion
that no injury would be done to Canada by his proposed
equalization of the duty. That colony which, in 1821, con-
sumed no more than 1,600,000 worth of the produce of this
country, last year consumed upwards of 3,000,000, the
greater part of which was paid for in timber. He could not
concur in the object of the hon. and learned gentleman,
which appeared to be to get rid of all differential duties, and
to
Place our colonies in all respects on the footing of inde-
pendent states. If they wanted an example of the advan-
tages arising from opening a trade, be referred them to the
case of India. He would have the politicians and manufac-
turers of this country prize the colonial system, and keep it
° and above all, maintain the differential duties, which
were'"sa the link to keep it together. It was, as Adam Smith
upoatttliling the colonies favours for the restrictions they laid
ttides I:ia, and affording them advantages over analagous ar-
sitiou fi,.T 'markets of this country. He had taken his po-
interests 041° protect the colonial system and the other
into the quettatifenntry ; but he was perfectly willing to go
relax them, to of the protective duties—to modify and
each individual ult. where sufficient protection was given to
injuriously en other interests.
and to see that it did not operate
trade, do not let them interests. If they were to have a free
ing and one-sided free have, as Mr. Clay had said, a blight-
elves dependent upentfrade, and do not let them make them-
nntrV, which luta withstood states. But the glories of this
if the specious and fraudulent
d aworld in arms, would be laid
moved
swas ever adopted.
ith respect to the coloaurnlent system which was now
P. M. STEwAter that the duty on colonial
P reduced to 5s per
and the duty on foreign
355. and that the measurement
e of deals for the pur-
ng duty be taken in Q
with the re-
cnendation of the committee, of 18VrtnitY
.
supported the
trade and
Mr. GLADSTONE, at considerable length,
.
-nrnent proposition, as most beneficial to
the
to our
'me of this country, without doing any injury

nd twin

iced by t

of charg

—y,
and which was 0

EEL thou

IdttlicZs

every
colonies.
a few words from Sir C. NAPIER,
After
Mr. HUME said the government proposition w. ;
respect superior to those of Sir H. Douglas and Mr. Stew-
art, but he thought Mr. Roebuck's preferable to an
Mr. F. T. BARING was not prepared to suppe/ of
position of Mr. Roebuck, for he could not bring hlinse&o
once to abolish those differential duties, in which so manat
important interests were involved. He should give his so;
port to the proposition of the government, which would give
a lower differential duty than that which he had himself
onsidered as absolutely

-----
inous.
n a division the amendment of Mr. Roebuck was nega-
d by a majorit of 2to 16.
Sir H. DOUGLAy S then moved, as an amendment, that the
ity upon timber be 30s instead of 25s the load, and the duty

it the most important argumeni;n,is-.._
..,u in the course of this debate was that of the
gen-
tleman the member for Renfrewshire (Mr. P. 31.
tuber there
viz., that by the proposed change in the duty on timber 9
WO.
would be a saving of .£93 in the building of a house of
.Stecvart)—
This, combined with the reduction of the duty on iron,
w°uld
be also conducive of great advantage to the shipping interest.
(Hear.) The proposed alterations of the duty of timber hadbeen received most favourably on the shores of the Baltic,
Ind with regard to the importation of iron, though the pro-
)rietors of the mines of Silesia and the Rhenish provinces
iad almost succeeded in extorting from their governments an
ncrease of the duty on British-manufactured iron, yet be
Sir R. Peel) was happy to
say that that measure had been
ispended in consequence of the publication of the proposed
• tir;ff in this country. (Hear.) Under the circum-
creold not consent to any alteration of the mea-

tbg jotospnien,t•
rtCr
taal(raS, from Mr. LABOUCIMRE, Lord SAN-
,
.AI
ORNELY, the gaiter/ waa cicala for a di-
att