§ Mr. Granville Vernonsaid, that in rising to move, that the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Burgess to serve in this Parliament for the borough of Liverpool, he could not but express his astonishment that his Motion should be opposed by those who, like himself, were the friends and supporters of the great measure of Reform that was now passing through the House. Had that opposition proceeded from those on the other side of the House, who were anxious to stave off the great measure, by the discussion and concession of some partial Reform, he should have felt no surprise; for it was part of their policy thus to divert attention from the great question. He contended, that the present case was very different from that of Grampound, where the issuing of the writ had been for a long time suspended. Grampound was but an insignificant borough; but the importance of Liverpool was such, that the burthen of the Representation of its important and varied interests, could be but inadequately borne by one individual. In fact, the merchants of Liverpool, who had lately presented a petition to the House on the subject, were the great sufferers from wanting a Member. It would probably save time, if he at once admitted, that a degree of corruption, much to be deprecated, both in and out of that House, had 1137 existed at different elections for Liverpool, and that that corruption was not exhibited for the first time in November last; but that the returns of Mr. Roscoe, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Huskisson, had also been tainted with it. He thought, that while so important a discussion as that of the Reform Bill was going on in that House, the town of Liverpool ought not to be left with only one Representative. The great object, he would contend, was, to purify the borough, and to set an example, that would have a beneficial effect upon the great body of electors throughout the kingdom. Now, both objects would be fully attained by the Bill then before the House for a general Reform in Parliament, which would give Liverpool a constituency of more than 14,000 electors. He thought, that most of the hon. Members whom he then addressed, would agree with him, that nothing could be more totally needless, than to enter into an investigation with respect to Liverpool, such as that which had been instituted with respect to East Retford, or even that with respect to Penryn. He would entreat the House to pause before it entered into a labyrinth of investigation, out of which it might not get for many years. Investigations of that nature generally compromised the respectability of the House, and were therefore, as well as on other accounts, productive of great evil. The House of Commons was a body particularly ill calculated to bring such inquiries to a satisfactory termination: there was no body worse calculated for judicial purposes. There could not be a worse system of proceeding for the House to adopt, in cases of that nature, than one which laid their decisions open to reversal in the Lords—a Court which could act as a Court of Appeal with vast advantages and facilities, as compared with those enjoyed by the House of Commons. He hoped further, that the House would agree to the motion with which he intended to conclude, for the issue of the new writ; for he could not conceive anything more inexpedient or unjust, than to deprive so large a constituency of the elective franchise, especially at the present crisis, when the rights of the community were at stake, being involved in, and bound up with, the great measure then under the consideration of Parliament. He concluded, by moving, "that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the 1138 Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Liverpool, in the room of John Evelyn Denison, Esq., who has made his election to serve for the county of Nottingham."
§ Mr. Benettsaid, that, as there had been an understanding in the House, that the writ for Liverpool should be suspended until he brought forward his motion on the subject, he felt he could not, with any regard for his own character or consistency, refrain from bringing forward that motion, by way of amendment to the Motion just made. He did not wish to delay the Reform Bill, but, as Chairman of the Committee on the Liverpool election petition, he felt it to be his imperative duty to propose a series of resolutions, pledging the House to take the subject into serious consideration. Me could not at all agree with those who argued that the last election in Liverpool, in which no bribery was proved to have prevailed, was a sufficient proof of the restored purity of that constituency, or wiped away the stain which the corrupt practices, proved to I have prevailed at the former election, necessarily threw on that constituency. He need only refer to the evidence taken before the Select Committee, and he put it to any man who had read that evidence to say, whether the House could overlook such practices, when brought before it upon the report of its own Committee? He could not suppose that there would be any unwillingness either on the part of Reformers, or those opposed to Reform, to punish such a case of gross delinquency. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read several extracts from the evidence taken before the Liverpool election Committee, which had been printed several months since, by order of the House, to prove the extent of the bribery which prevailed at Liverpool.] This evidence, he contended, could leave no doubt on the mind of any man that gross bribery and corruption prevailed most extensively in Liverpool at the election before the last. Five pounds were given by the friends of both candidates in the early part of the election, but as it proceeded, 40l. was the price given for a vote. It might naturally excite surprise that so large a sum should be spent by any men for the sake of obtaining seats in that House. It was to be considered, however, that there was enormous patronage in Liverpool, which had hitherto been placed at the disposal of the 1139 Member for that town, if he happened to be a supporter of the Government of the day. Such practices, he hoped and believed, were now to be done away with for ever. It was notorious, however, that the situation of Town-clerk of Liverpool was worth 4,000l. per annum, and that there were several other situations averaging between 2,000l. and 3,000l. a year in that town, in the disposal of which the Members for the town had usually exercised a great influence. He did not believe that either of the Gentlemen who were candidates at the election impugned, had any sinister motives, or any other object in view but the laudable ambition of obtaining so high an honour as a seat in that House for the great commercial town of Liverpool. He, acquitted the candidates themselves of any improper motives, but there might be other persons behind the curtain who had an eye to the disposal of the patronage, and with that view were willing to spend large sums of money in bribing the electors. However this might be, he conceived that the constituency of Liverpool, by gross and extensive corruption, had forfeited their rights. The elective franchise was given to them, as to all other constituent bodies, as a trust; that trust they had abused, and they had no right to complain if the Legislature deprived them of it altogether, or disposed of it in any way that might be deemed expedient. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an amendment to leave out all the words after "That" in the resolution and to add these words "this House doth agree in the report made by the Select Committee on the 26th March last, that gross bribery and treating prevailed at the late election for Members to serve in Parliament for Liverpool," instead thereof.
§ The question put on the Amendment.
Mr. Humewould support the original Motion, for when he considered the situation in which the House was placed by the Bill then going through a Committee, he could not but feel unwilling to go back to the election before the last for the purpose of punishing the electors of Liverpool. He should decidedly support the issue of the writ, for nothing appeared to him more unwise and unfair than to keep a large community like that of Liverpool for any further length of time without the benefit of a Representative. In the new constituency there would not be included 1140 above one-fifth or one-sixth of that portion of the old which was open to any suspicion of bribery; then why proceed to make a special law for the prevention of an evil which, under the altered circumstances of the elective franchise, no rational man could anticipate? Had it not been for the Reform Bill, he should certainly have supported the motion of the hon. member for Wiltshire, but there was obviously no utility in passing a new Act of Parliament, when the electors of Liverpool, in consequence of the Reform Bill, would have no opportunity of again committing the same offence.
§ Lord Morpethwould rather see means taken for the prevention than the punishment of crime. The innocent ought not to be punished for the guilty, and the great mercantile interests of Liverpool ought to be represented. The Reform Bill put an end to all necessity for suspending the writ, and he thought that the continued suspension of the writ, amounting to actual disfranchisement, would be exceedingly arbitrary, considering that it was done without the sanction of the other branches of the Legislature. The House of Commons even had not come to any decision on the subject—the Committee alone had decided.
Mr. Wasonsupported the Amendment, and contended, that it was an insult to the Reform Bill, and to the electors of England, to say, that that measure was intended to meet so gross a case of corruption as that of Liverpool. The noble member for Yorkshire seemed to think, that the Motion was one of expediency; but he must deny that it was any such thing. It was a question of justice; and, being so, expediency had nothing to do with it. The electors of Liverpool had forfeited their right to return Members to that House, and, having done so, no blame; could rest upon the House for withholding the writ. But they were mincing the matter. The fact was, that General Gas-coyne was no longer returned for Liverpool. Had that gallant General been returned to the present Parliament, the old unanimity of the last Parliament would have been found still to prevail. When the resolution affecting Liverpool was formerly presented to the House, it was agreed to almost unanimously. The Reform Bill, unamended certainly, was at the same time before the House, and yet none of the arguments now advanced in favour 1141 of issuing the writ were then brought forward.
Mr. Laboucherethought, that the conduct of the freemen of Liverpool justified their disfranchisement; but, on the other hand, it was a great hardship to leave the great commercial interests of that town with only one Representative; and it was on that ground alone that he should vote for the issuing of the writ. At the same time, he hoped that these freemen would soon be overtaken by a just measure of disfranchisement.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, it was really curious that the hon. member for Bassetlaw should be the person to submit the Motion then before the House. It was a fact worthy of being recorded, especially in these reforming times, that one of the Representatives of the district last created for the purpose of preventing corruption, should be the person now to move, that convicted corruption should be set at liberty, and allowed to run its course in triumph. He was not present when this question was before under the consideration of the House. Had he been, he should have entertained very grave constitutional doubts as to the propriety of suspending the issuing of the writ. The issuing of the King's writ, in his opinion, acted as a sort of condonation of the offence the electors of Liverpool had committed, and he thought it was dangerous and unadvisable for that House, in election cases, to revive questions entertained by former Parliaments, and which had not been purposely reserved for its consideration. At the same time, however, he was aware, that this case presented itself under peculiar circumstances. The issuing of the King's writ, in consequence of the late dissolution, was a matter of surprise; it was unexpected, and it suspended an inquiry of great importance to the privileges of that House, and the rights of the people; and therefore, hon. Members who agreed with him as to the general constitutional objection, still might say, that those very peculiar circumstances justified their voting for the continued suspension of the writ in the new Parliament. But then came a question upon the back of that, of vast importance. The Reform Bill was before the House. The clause of that Bill which continued to existing freemen the franchise for their lives, would operate not only condonation and forgiveness to the corrupt, convicted electors of Liver- 1142 pool, but it would place them on a superior eminence, and give them advantages which it denied to thousands of honest, intelligent, and unsuspected voters. While the Reform Bill deprived the free and honest elector of the franchise, it secured that privilege to the corrupt freeman of Liverpool. He rested his support of the proposition of the hon. member for Wiltshire, upon the simple fact, that thousands of the electors of Liverpool had been convicted of corruption, and he could not consent to grant to such electors the right of exercising, for their lives, the elective franchise. It was said, the Reform Bill was to purify the constituency, but how would it operate in Liverpool? Looking at that town, and the election battles that had been fought there, no one could doubt, that the respectable electors were pretty equally divided into opposite parties, and who then was to turn the scale, and to form the majority? Why these three or four thousand corrupt and convicted freemen, whose rights were to be preserved to them. He regretted to have been obliged to speak before the noble Lords (Althorp and John Russell), who might be considered as the godfathers of the Reform Bill, for he should certainly have liked to have known, before he addressed the House, what view of the question they now supported, and to have heard upon what grounds they defended the clause which was to preserve the elective franchise to the corrupt and convicted freemen of Liverpool. Such a proceeding would hold out a bounty to corruption, and do the most serious injury to real Reform. There was also another, not unimportant consideration—they must recollect, that they had once already decided this question. Were they to stultify the votes they had already given for suspending the writ? After that solemn step, they could not direct the writ now to issue, without most serious injury to the character of the House. Those who, like him, thought the present state of the Representation fully adequate to every useful purpose, and that, when individual cases of corruption occurred, they ought to be adequately punished, must oppose the Motion for the issue of the writ. The only reason assigned was, that one Member alone, though he were Atlas himself, could not support the great weight of the interests of Liverpool, and therefore, he required the aid of a Hercules to alleviate the 1143 burthen. But supposing for a moment, that the present Atlas of Liverpool were unequal to the discharge of his duties to his intelligent, wealthy, and independent constituency. How was it proposed to remedy this defect? why, by giving him a colleague, who would represent, not the wealth, intelligence, and independence of Liverpool, but the venality, corruption, and profligacy, which it was now proposed to dig out of the grave in which we ourselves had buried them, and to reinvest them with the powers of election. The fact was, that the suspension of the writ killed them, and this was a galvanic experiment to give them an appearance of life. If he could feel a pleasure in seeing the Reform question itself dragged through the mire, he could not desire a more grateful sight than to find such a Motion as this, for rewarding and perpetuating convicted corruption, made by the hon. member for Bassetlaw, supported by the member for Middlesex, and cheered by so many Reformers.
§ Lord Althorpfelt himself placed in a situation of some difficulty. He had, on the occasion alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, voted for the issuing of the writ, because he felt that it was highly inexpedient that a town of the vast commercial importance of Liverpool should be but half represented in that House, on account of the mal-practices of a portion of the electors. He was of the same opinion still—the rather, as the issuing of the writ would not preclude or interfere with the question of the expediency of punishing those corrupt electors; and therefore he would, were his view of the case confined to that single point, vote for the hon. member for Bassetlaw's motion. Still, however, he felt the force of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, founded on the inconsistency of their then voting in the teeth of their former decision, and therefore felt himself compelled, contrary to his own individual opinion, to vote for the hon. member for Wiltshire's amendment.
§ Mr. Granville Vernonreplied. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) had expressed his surprise that he, as member for Bassetlaw, had brought forward this motion in favour of the corrupt freemen of Liverpool. He understood what the twitting meant; but he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he himself, when the East Retford case was before the 1144 House, had not voted for the continuance of the franchise to the freemen of that place, though their corruption was proved at the expense of 19,000l. to the country?
§ Mr. Huntwas glad that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had expressed himself in the way he had done; for, if the House were to vote for the issuing of the writ without inquiry, he should consider it one of the greatest disgraces that could happen. Had he not been aware that such a motion as that intended by the hon. member for Wiltshire was to come on, he certainly should have moved as an amendment, on the clause for continuing the franchise to freemen for life, that the electors of Liverpool be excepted.
Mr. Wilkswas sure the House would not have sanction d the motion for suspending the issue of the writ, could it have contemplated the long delay, with all its consequences, that had ensued.
Mr. Ewartsaid, it was a feeling of delicacy that prevented him from expressing his sentiments at length. He would therefore simply assure the House, that he should not vote at all, did he not feel that, if he represented any other place, he should think it his duty to vote for the issuing of the writ for Liverpool.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamwould vote for the Amendment. It was no argument against the motion for punishing the guilty electors of Liverpool, that two or three months had now intervened since that town had its full amount of Representation, because, in a question of justice, time was a secondary consideration. It was admitted on all hands that a very large number of the electors of Liverpool had been guilty of gross corruption; therefore the only question was, how justice could best be administered. The sooner and the more efficaciously, in his mind, the better; fiat justitia—ruat cœlum."
§ The House divided on the original question; Ayes 35; Noes 76;—Majority 41.
§ Words proposed were added; main question, as amended, put and agreed to.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Biddulph, R. M. | Dixon, J. |
| Biddulph, J. M. | Ellice, E. |
| Blamire, W. | Fergusson, Gen. |
| Byng, G. | Gurney, H. |
| Callaghan, D. | Heywood, B. |
| Campbell, J. | Hudson, T. |
| Denison, J. E. | Hume, J. |
| Denman, Sir T. | James, W. |
| Johnstone, A. | Pryse, P. |
| Kennedy, T. F. | Strickland, G. |
| Labouchere, H. | Strutt, E. |
| Lennox, Lord J. G. | Thicknesse, R. |
| Macauley, T. B. | Warburton, H. |
| Macnamara, W. | Wilks, J. |
| Moreton, Hon. H. | Wood, Alderman |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Wrightson, W. B. |
| Morrison, J. | TELLERS. |
| Newark, Lord | Ewart, W. |
| Power, R. | Vernon, G. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Althorp, Viscount | Malcolm, Sir J. |
| Astley, Sir J. | Meynell, Captain |
| Bankes, W. | Newport, Sir J. |
| Baring, H. | North, F. |
| Bernal, R. | Nowell, A. |
| Best, Hon. W. | Nugent, Lord |
| Blackney, W. | Nugent, Sir G. |
| Blount, E. | Pemberton, T. |
| Cavendish, W. | Pepys, C. C. |
| Calcraft, G. | Perceval, Colonel |
| Chandos, Marquis | Pelham, C. |
| Clements, Colonel | Phipps, G. |
| Cole, Lord | Pigott, G. |
| Croker, Rt. Hon. J.W. | Pollock, F. |
| Dick, Q. | Ponsonby, Hon. G. |
| Dundas, R. A. | Praed, W. M. |
| Douglas, W. K. | Pringle, A. |
| Estcourt, T. G. B. | Rice, Hon. T. S. |
| Ellis, W. | Ridley, Sir M. W. |
| Encombe, Lord | Robinson, G. R. |
| Fane, H. | Ross, C. |
| Fergusson, C. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Fergusson, Sir R. | Shaw, F. |
| Gordon, Hon. Captain | Smith, V. |
| Gordon, Captain J. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Gordon, R. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. E. G. |
| Hayes, Sir E. | Sugden, Sir E. |
| Herries, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. C. |
| Houldsworth, T. | Torrens, Col. |
| Hodges, T. | Venables, Alderman |
| Holmes, W. | Walker, W. |
| Hunt, H. | Wetherell, Sir C. |
| Johnstone, J. H. | Wilde, T. |
| Jones, T. | Williams, W. A. |
| Kenyon, Hon. L. | Wrangham, D. C. |
| Lefroy, Dr. | Young, J. |
| Lowther, J. | TELLERS. |
| Loughborough, Lord | Benett, J. |
| M 'Kinnon, W. A. | Wason, W. R. |
§ It was then resolved, on the motion of Mr. Benett, "That such bribery and treating requires the serious consideration of the House." The hon. Member then moved that leave be given to bring in a bill to prevent bribery and corruption at Liverpool.
Mr. Humehad not agreed to the last Resolution, and had not voted for the issuing the writ to promote delay. The issuing of the writ would prevent all delay, and this bill, which was to attain a trifling 1146 object, would promote delay. He regretted that his Majesty's Ministers had not thought it their duty to support the issuing of the writ. He should not object to bringing in the bill; but he certainly should oppose it at every subsequent stage, if it were likely to delay the Reform Bill.
§ Mr. Cresset Pelhamexpressed his extreme surprise at hearing that the hon. member for Middlesex, who had on so many occasions occupied the House with discussions on matters of justice, would oppose this measure. The hon. Member had travelled all over the kingdom for grievances, particularly with respect to the inferior officers of the army, and therefore his present observations were particularly ill-timed, as it was evidently the intention of the House to proceed without delay with the Reform Bill.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonconcurred with what the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had said. He felt totally unable to reconcile the speeches and conduct of the hon. member for Middlesex with his notions of consistency, the evidence before the election Committee, proving the existence of bribery and corruption at the Liverpool election to be so manifest, that he considered it incumbent upon the House to take some steps to show its sense of displeasure. He believed that no case had ever been presented to a Committee of that House, so fraught with corrupt practices, and where bribery had been carried on in a more flagrant manner. They saw their way pretty clearly with the Reform Bill, and he knew no reason why they might not proceed with this bill afterwards.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, if the bill now sought to be introduced were likely to delay the Reform Bill, he should oppose it. He understood that the hon. Gentleman (the member for Wiltshire) would only introduce it, and not press the further stages at present. If the bill delayed for a single day the English, Scotch, and Irish Reform Bills in their progress through the House, he certainly would not give it his support; but, if it were intended to proceed with it after those measures should have received the sanction of the House, why then he would not oppose its introduction.
Lord John Russellwould agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, if the bill were calculated to stop the progress of the Reform Bills for Ireland and Scotland. 1147 But he should differ from him if he said that the bill was not to be entertained at all. He thought that the measure was a most proper one. It was, in his opinion, more necessary than ever, when the Bill of Reform was about to be completed, that it should not be allowed to go forth that the House was disposed to encourage corruption. It was more necessary than ever that the House should take measures to prevent such a supposition from being formed.
§ Mr. George Robinsonthought the hon. member for Wiltshire did not mean to delay the Reform Bill. If leave were given to bring in a bill for preventing bribery and corruption at Liverpool, he supposed that his hon. friend would postpone the further consideration of it till after the Reform bills were passed. It would be disreputable in the House to suffer this corruption to go unnoticed, and the last days of the present Parliament could not be better employed than in stigmatizing and punishing such a gross case of corruption.
§ Mr. Crokerlooked upon the motion as calculated to accelerate Reform. It was impossible to allow that clause of the Reform Bill, relative to freemen, to pass as it at present stood, unless there was a prospect of a bill like that now proposed being introduced. It was not possible to pass that clause and allow the freemen of Liverpool to be exonerated; and therefore it would prevent discussion upon the Reform Bill, to bring in the present bill.
§ Mr. Benettthought the hon. member for Middlesex might have inferred from his conduct that he would do nothing to retard the success of the Reform Bill.
Mr. Humewould not object to the bill if it were not to be proceeded with till after the Reform Bills were out of the House.
§ Leave given—the Bill to be brought in.