§ Mr. Granville Vernon, in moving a New Writ for Liverpool, said, that after the House had come to two decisions during the present Session adverse to the motion which he had now the honour of submitting, he felt himself bound to give some reasons for his pertinacity in renewing the discussion. There were two objects which it behoved every hon. Gentleman to bear in mind—the first was, his own character, the second, that of the House. He was prepared to contend, that by voting for the motion which he should conclude by proposing to the House, that hon. Members would fulfil both these objects. He considered that subsequent events had altered the case wholly, upon which the former decisions were rested. Those decisions, in his opinion, were calculated to establish a dangerous precedent, and were a departure from the privileges of Parliament, as settled by long custom. The facts of the case were, that in a former Parliament, bribery to a large extent was proved to have been practised at Liverpool, but there was no case where a writ had been suspended on such retrospective considerations. Where was such a precedent to stop? By what limits could it be defined? If the acts of a constituency in a former Parliament were reviewed in this manner, what was to prevent the House from recurring to more ancient delinquencies? There was no want of cases, and would 648 the House be prepared to suspend the writs for any such places merely upon the statement of any hon. Member who would declare he believed the same corrupt practices were continued and still in operation. This would be to repose a dangerous and most unconstitutional power in the majority of the House. Hon. Members should also remember, that it was by mere accident that the House had any opportunity of withholding the writ. One of the hon. Members returned for that town (Mr. Denison) had made his election to sit for the county of Nottingham, for which he was also returned, and, but for this circumstance, Liverpool would now have two Representatives. These circumstances, so far from involving the House in any inconsistency by agreeing to his motion, were sufficient to establish the fact, that the inconsistency would be in departing from ancient usage, and if the alternative could not be avoided, it would be better to give up the imperfect incidental votes of the present Session, rather than set them up against unvaried prescription. But he would go so far as to deny that his motion was inconsistent with these previous votes; they were come to, under circumstances when a measure was before them by which it was probable the whole constituency would be amended and purified, and it was argued, that it would be adviseable to delay the writ until that object was effected; now that there was no longer any prospect that great measure could be effected during the present Session, the case stood on a different footing, and the question was, whether they would keep the great interests of Liverpool only half represented during another Session, or allow the issue of the writ. The House, he was sure, would not refuse to listen to the prayer of 1,400 of the most opulent merchants and inhabitants of that important place, who prayed for a full Representation as necessary for a due attention to their interests in that House. He would therefore move, "That the Speaker be directed to issue his warrant for the election of a Member to serve in Parliament for the borough of Liverpool."
§ Mr. Rigby Wason rose to propose an amendment to the Motion just made, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House would be happy to learn that such amendment was strictly in precedent, and was founded on a case 649 which was supported by the whole of the present Ministers. When this question had last been argued there appeared some difficulty in the minds of several hon. Members, whether the House should interfere with an election after a dissolution of Parliament, but they had at length been convinced, that such bribery and corruption as had degraded the electors of Liverpool ought not to go unpunished, yet the same Gentlemen who had twice before refused to agree to a writ being issued, were now again called upon to vote that these corrupt electors were to have another Member to watch over their interests during the recess. The hon. Member who introduced the question had told the House, there was no precedent for suspending a writ for prior delinquencies: if there was no precedent in favour of it, there was certainly none against it, and, therefore, in the absence of precedent, the House must make one, and he had no doubt that would be founded on the principle of preventing bribery and corruption, by whomsoever practised. The fact, however, was, no circumstances had before occurred precisely similar to the present, therefore no opinion of the House on the subject had been recorded. He believed that most of the hon. Gentlemen who had advocated and supported the schedules in the late Reform Bill did so upon the conviction that the franchise was a trust which might be resumed by Parliament and the Sovereign, when those in whose hands it was placed could not exercise it with advantage to themselves, and for the benefit of the country. It was upon such principles he had voted for these schedules. How, then, in consistency with these principles could hon. Members be expected to allow again the privilege of returning a Member to those electors who had been legally proved to have been guilty of the most gross corruption. He should, therefore, move as an amendment. "That this House will not order any warrant to issue a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in the present Parliament for the borough of Liverpool until the expiration of fourteen days after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament."
§ Mr. John Campbellsaid, it would be a great injustice to the merchants of Liverpool if the writ should be withheld after the prorogation of Parliament. The consequence would be, to deprive Liverpool of one Member during 650 the whole of the present Parliament, for there could be no doubt that the ensuing Session would be wholly taken up with one paramount subject and, no Bill regulating the franchise of Liverpool could be expected to go through the House: besides, he considered that when hon. Members themselves knew they represented the same corrupt interests, to bring in and pass such a bill was hardly honest. A sanction had been given to bribery by nomination boroughs, and the best way now was, to declare an amnesty, and turn over a new leaf, and when they had a Reformed Parliament it was to be hoped and expected all the Members of it would be returned upon pure principles; but should a case of corruption occur then, it ought to be punished most severely. It was said, the House had already come to decisions during the present Session inconsistent with the Motion before it, but hon. Gentlemen who voted upon, such occasions must have done so under the impression that the hon. member for Wiltshire's Bill would become a law during the present Session, but as there was now no hope of that he trusted the House would sanction the issuing of the writ forthwith.
§ Mr. Benettwas prepared to vote for the Amendment, and was sorry to hear Reformers attempting to defend a case of such gross corruption as that of Liverpool. Out of 4,300 freemen of Liverpool only 300 were not proved guilty of corruption. How could the House, therefore, when they had a Bill still upon their Table to punish the corrupt electors, send them a writ to to return another Member. He submitted that there could be no practical hardship in leaving that town without a second Member during the recess.
§ Mr. Gisbornesaid, that he should support the issuing of the writ, on the principle that the King's writ had issued since the corrupt election complained of, and of the return to that writ no complaint could be made. If the electors had been found competent to make one good return after the commission of the offence, surely they ought to be trusted a second time.
Mr. Ewartsupported the issuing of the writ. The great mercantile transactions of the place required that another Member should be afforded to it as soon as possible. The House ought not to be guided by precedent alone but by expediency, and it was inexpedient to leave Liverpool with only one Member,
Mr. Goulburncomplained of the delay of the bill on this subject. He had voted for the suspension of the writ, in consequence of the report of the Committee, under the understanding that the bill was to be proceeded with. Being placed in such circumstances, he could not do otherwise than vote for the Amendment, though he thought it extremely hard on Liverpool to be so long deprived of one Representative.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, it was not fair, because the bill could not be proceeded with in the present Session, that that should prevent Liverpool from returning one of its Members. He admitted there was a difficulty in sending a writ to a constituency proved to be corrupt; but he thought that was not a sufficient reason for refusing to issue a writ, which would prevent Liverpool having its due share of Representation in the House.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussoncould not consent, whilst the constituency of Liverpool remained so corrupt as it had been described by a Committee of that House, to issue a writ for a Representative. He should vote for the Amendment.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyanwas of opinion that the House had no right to suspend the writ over the prorogation. Such a place as Liverpool ought to be fully represented in Parliament, and the present vacancy was occasioned by accident only.
Lord Ingestriesaid, he should oppose issuing the writ, because bribery had been distinctly and fully proved against the majority of the freemen of Liverpool. Rather than that place should suffer from the want of a Representative in consequence, he was ready to offer any services in his power.
§ Sir George Warrenderhad refused to vote for the issue of the writ for East Retford for three years, and for the sake of consistency, therefore, he must vote against the issue of the writ for Liverpool: the corruption at Liverpool had been very great.
§ Mr. Huntdeclared he would vote against the issue of the writ. This Motion would show the Reformers in that House in their proper colours to the public.
§ Mr. Daniel Whittle Harveysaid, that this was not an isolated question, but a question of principle. The opposition to the issuing of the writ was founded on the principle, that the only Reform that was necessary was the application of adequate 652 remedies to detected delinquency. Those who were of that opinion were perfectly consistent in opposing the present Motion, but he would declare, that the man was a feeble or suspicious Reformer who could maintain, that the only method of purifying that House was by the detection of occasional impurities, in the hope that, probably in a century or two, a few such cases would be proved against certain boroughs. From what the House had already seen of such attempts at reformation they might judge of their practical utility. It was proved that the constituency of Liverpool had been detected in the most extraordinary wholesale bribery. A more corrupt set of burgesses could not be found. It was to correct such delinquencies to give a wholesome rule of correction, and prevent such practices for the future, that the late Reform Bill had been passed through that House by triumphant majorities. That Bill he had supported, but he had ever opposed himself to partial and hypocritical Reforms like the purification of Liverpool because he would not sanction a different measure of justice to be dealt out to constituents and patrons, punishing the former for receiving a given sum of money in detail, and allowing the same amount to be given to the patron of a borough in one whole sum. A noble Lord or Jew speculator who put 5,000l., as the price of a Member returned by him to that House, into his pocket, was engaged in a more odious and profligate transaction than the electors who were bribed, and had not the redeeming apology of poverty to plead—an apology that might generally be urged in favour of those who received small sums for their votes. These, however, were the persons selected for punishment, and this selection of persons it was, that made the present a question of principle. Whether the House issued the writ for a second Member to be returned for Liverpool was comparatively of small importance, but the hostility to the measure, and the principle on which it was founded, was of great importance, as from it arose the question, whether the House ought to prosecute a general Reform, which would abrogate corrupt boroughs by wholesale, or only deal with those which were so unfortunate as to be detected in delinquency. That principle he most fully objected to, for it was the principle of those who wished to canonize a system of nomination. It was 653 a principle well understood by the country as hypocritical in its pretences, and subversive of real Reform. Upon these grounds he was prepared to support the issuing of the writ
§ Mr. Wranghamwondered how any man could vote for this Motion. He could not consent to give to a corrupt body—a body infamously corrupt—a right to return a Member to Parliament. He looked with dread to the measure for altering the whole system of Representation, but he would never hesitate to apply a remedy where the guilt of corruption was brought home to the parties. The hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House had endeavoured to mislead it. He had asked, how could any hon. Gentleman defend 5000l. being given to one individual for a seal in that House, and yet object to the freemen of Liverpool receiving that sum among them, divided into small portions, for the exercise of their rights. Without pretending to answer that question he (Mr. Wrangham) would declare, that if the hon. Member would prove that any person had received 5,000l. for a seat in Parliament by the same evidence as the guilt had been proved against the freemen of Liverpool, he would vote against any writ being again issued to the place so circumstanced. It had been urged as a reason for the House now issuing a writ to Liverpool, that, at an earlier period of the Session there was a Bill before the House to amend the Representation in general, and that prevented the hon. member for Wiltshire from proceeding with his bill relating to Liverpool alone: but the Reform Bill was now disposed of, and the hon. Member was ready to proceed, when he was met by being told an adjournment was at hand. They had now to consider how their position was altered by this announcement. The House had already twice decided that the electors of Liverpool were unworthy to exercise their franchise, and coupling that with the pledge the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had given that the writ should not issue until the hon. member for Wiltshire had had an opportunity of purifying the constituency, would not the House stultify its own proceedings by now agreeing to the original Motion?
§ Mr. Granville Vernonsaid, he had heard no arguments to convince him that it was right to leave 5,000 persons unrepresented. On the principle of virtual Representation all the Members ought to support 654 the issue of the writ. There would be questions of great importance in the ensuing Session, involving the interests of Liverpool, which rendered it essentially necessary that that place should have the benefit of full Representation by persons of experience. He trusted the House would permit him to say a few words upon the remarks made by several hon. Members who had opposed the Motion, among others his hon. friend, the member for Honiton (Sir George Warrender), had cast a stone at the electors of Liverpoool. The borough his hon. friend represented had the credit of not being one of the purest, for he remembered when Lord Cochrane had declared in that House, after being elected for that borough, that he had sent the bellman round the town with a notice that every voter might come and receive 5l. He saw the House was extremely impatient to come to a decision, and he would detain them no further than by saying, he hoped they would reverse their former vote as the present circumstances were so different.
§ The House divided on the Original Motion, Ayes 93; Noes 67—Majority 26.
§ Writ ordered to be issued accordingly.