§ The Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill having been read.
§ Mr. Benettrose to address the House, He could assure hon. Members that he would occupy but a very short time with the statements he should feel it his duly to make. Indeed, if the noble Lord (one of the members for the borough.) would say that he did not intend dividing the House at the present stage of the proceeding, he would content himself with simply moving the second reading of the Bill.
§ Lord Sandoncertainly did intend to divide the House on the present occasion.
§ Mr. Benetttrusted the House would in that case bear with him whilst he stated as briefly as possible the general features and grounds of the Bill. Before doing so, however, he was anxious, in justice to the Government of the country, to make one observation upon an article which had lately appeared in the Liverpool Standard, that the measure was brought forward and promoted by the secret instigation of Ministers, and that he (Mr. Benett.) was acting throughout the affair as their tool, and for their purposes. He at. once disclaimed all such connexion with Government. He had introduced his Bill strictly from a sense of duty, without communicating at all with Government, without having any connexion with Liverpool, and depending only on the support of those who honestly agreed with him on the general merits of the question. He had, on various occasions when the subject was brought on, yielded to Government, and postponed its discussion from time to time, lest it might interfere with the progress of that great measure, the Reform Bill; and it had been repeatedly delayed, till last year, when the House thought proper to appoint a Committee, restricting its inquiries, however, to what had taken place at the late election. That Committee having sat and entered at length into an examination of the subject, made a report to the House, and three to one came to the conclusion that a case had been proved. [The hon. Member referred to the Report of the Committee, which he read at length, for the purpose of showing the origin and
* See Hansard, (third series) xxi, p. 159.847 the grounds of his Bill.] When he was induced originally to withdraw it, the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, expressed a hope that he would, after the Reform Bill was carried, proceed with his measure; and the right hon. member for Montgomery shire (Mr. Wynn) stated at the time that if he had a seat in the House he would give it his support. He was glad to observe that an increasing attention and interest seemed to have been excited in favour of the measure; and he particularly relied on the assistance and co-operation of those who, having always objected to any wholesale measure of disfranchisement, yet professed themselves ready, whenever a gross case of corruption was distinctly made out, to visit it with proper and just severity. Now, the Bill for the disfranchisement of Liverpool was exactly a case in point. The number of persons who had received bribes amounted to 2,661, the un-bribed to 992; the registered householders under the Reform Act amounted to 8,800, and those who had not registered to 3,627. He had never heard of bribery so gross and so wholesale as that which had taken place at different elections for Liverpool; and he had never heard of a case in which men were so loath to vote without receiving a consideration for their votes as they were at Liverpool. He called on Parliament to restore the Constitution and to disfranchise those freemen, because they were corrupt, because they were not independent, and because they were bought and sold like cattle at every election. He referred to the evidence given by John Atkinson to prove this assertion. The evidence of Atkinson proved, that he had given a man 50l. for his vote—that the man was reluctant to take it—but that he was induced to take it by his wife, who told him to look at his dear children. The poor man seemed infinitely distressed by this appeal, but at last consented to vote as he was desired. He put on his coat in great agitation, and, on going to the hustings to vote, he turned to the witness and asked him for whom should he vote, having forgotten the name of the candidate in whose interest he was brought. He was reminded that it was Mr. Denison; and, in consequence he voted for that Gentleman. Mr. Denison thanked him, and offered to shake hands with him; but the poor man replied, "No, Sir, though I have given you my vote, I cannot consent to give you my hand." He wished to rescue these poor 848 men from this species of corruption. He wished to save them from this sin and misery—for a deep sin it was in those who received the bribe, and a deeper still in those who offered it. Though he was satisfied that no bribery had been offered at the last election with the privity and consent of the noble Lord, he was still satisfied that bribery had been committed there. The evidence of the witnesses had established it, and the House depending upon the veracity of their evidence, had agreed to the second reading of this Bill last Session. He would not detain the House any longer, but would now move the second reading of the Liverpool Disfranchisement Bill—a Bill which the House was bound to pass, if it intended to follow up the principle of the Reform Bill.
§ Mr. Rigby Wasonseconded the Motion, and was sure the House would agree, and particularly the noble Lord opposite, that if upon this occasion, he did not follow his usual custom of brevity, it was to give the noble Lord an opportunity of rebutting the statements he should make with respect to individuals of whose conduct the noble Lord might be informed, and that any other friends of theirs in the House might have the same opportunity. He should show indisputably from the evidence which had been laid before the Committee, that the mayor, town-clerk, and others of the corporation of Liverpool were men unworthy to be believed. It was a strong accusation; and if he did not satisfy the House that he was justified in making it, he was ready that the odium which always attached to false accusations should rest with him. He made no accusation against the gallant General who had long represented the town of Liverpool. He would first take the case of the town-clerk, who, it was clearly and indisputably proved—
§ Lord Sandon.Does the hon. and learned Gentleman make his charges against these two Gentlemen the grounds on which he supports the Bill for the disfranchisement of all the freemen? If he does not, is it right that the characters of two respectable gentlemen should be attacked when they cannot defend themselves, and when it is unnecessary to the success of the Bill?
§ Mr. Rigby Wasonshould expressly confine his observations upon those gentlemen to the point of showing the justice of the case, and if he should happen accidentally to make use of the word "perjury" in the course of his speech, he begged to be ex- 849 cused. He would first state the case of a man whose name was John Robinson, the captain of a merchant-vessel, who was desirous of retiring from that line of life, and of obtaining the office of landing-waiter in the Customs, at Liverpool. His wife being possessed of some small property in her own right, appropriated 400l., part of that property, for the advancement of her husband. Having agreed with Mr. Roger Leigh, a partizan of General Gascoyne, for the place, she gave the money, in the month of October, 1818, to her husband, and his brother, Mr. Charles Robinson, by whom it was paid to Mr. Thomas Foster and by him paid over again to the treasurer of General Gascoyne's election fund. Robinson being unwilling to part with so much money without getting a receipt, refused to give the money unless Foster agreed to give a receipt. Accordingly he appointed an interview the next day at his office, and, after some conversation, gave a receipt, expressing it to be "for a purpose understood between them." There was no misstatement; they would find the transactions stated in page 124 of the evidence. In the course of the year 1819 the husband of Mrs. Robinson was appointed, not a full landing-waiter as he had expected, but an assistant only. However, he died in eleven weeks after his appointment; Upon the death of her husband, Mrs. Robinson applied for a return of the 400l., first to Mr. Roger Leigh, and afterwards to Mr. Thomas Foster, who "behaved as a gentleman," and "promised to do all in his power for her." In consequence of this application, Mr. Pennington, the clerk of Mr. Foster, was directed to wait upon Mrs. Robinson. He was told that he would receive a sum of money, and was also told what he was to do with it; and finding the sum of 100l., in a cover directed to him, lying on his desk in Mr. Foster's office, he carried it to Mrs. Robinson. Mrs. Robinson having refused to accept this money, Mr. Thomas Foster informed his clerk that he would receive another sum; and Mr. Pennington, accordingly did receive a sum of 200l., which in like manner, he tendered to Mrs. Robinson, and which she accepted. The receipt which had been given by Mr. Foster for the 400l. was then delivered to Pennington, who immediately destroyed it, and informed Mr. Foster of what had taken place. His instructions were to obtain and destroy the receipt. An attempt 850 was made during the inquiry to give to this transaction the colour of an ordinary election subscription. This, however, was distinctly denied by Mrs. Robinson, who said, that the money was not subscribed to the election; it was a regular purchase." But surely it would not be believed, nor would the House be credulous enough to believe, that Mr. Foster could have had an interview with three parties in his office, and at the time be ignorant of the purpose for which he received this money? He appealed fearlessly to the House to judge of those facts as they found them, and without prejudice or partiality. He begged most distinctly to say that neither then nor on any other occasion had he been a party to this transaction. There was an evident contradiction between the words of the Mayor and those of another individual witness; and of the two he preferred the evidence of the latter. He appealed to the hon. Member who was counsel for the corporation, as to the mode in which the first question he should have to refer to was put to the Mayor. He asked that hon. and learned Member why he did not draw forth from the Mayor a direct denial, rather than the answer elicited by his mode of putting the question. The Mayor was examined, and stated, that he canvassed for Sir Howard Douglas, and that he never was applied to for money or drink, or any description of bribe whatsoever. Now in contradistinction to this, he would place the evidence to which he referred.
§ Dr. Nichollbegged the hon. Member in alluding to the counsel conducting the case, would not designate him by any term which would imply that he had not done, or that he had overstepped the boundaries, of his duty.
§ Mr. Rigby Wasonwished it to be understood, that he did not make use of the term "the learned counsel" with the view supposed by the hon. Member; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman disdained the title of counsel, he would not again apply it to him. The hon. Member proceeded to read the evidence he designed to contrast with that of the Mayor. Mr. John Downey had stated, with reference to the election of 1827, that he treated from 100 to 200 freemen at that election; that they had "refreshments of every description, cold dinners, suppers, and breakfasts—everything." This lasted four or five days, and the men were treated after they had 851 voted in the same manner as before? He contended, that the Mayor should have been questioned most distinctly as to his participation or not in these transactions. Was it not he who gave instructions to Downey to proceed in this manner? It was stated that, by the orders of Mr. Alderman Wright, those things were done. Mr. Lawrence, the brewer, too, was active on Potter's behalf. It was told the voters that they should have for their votes "what was going," viz., from 1l. to 5l. The sums varied as the election proceeded. The witness, however, did not see them receive the money. Upon all these facts, he contended, that he had sufficiently shown that the Mayor was cognizant of the bribery practised. He would ask the House, whether it was not as plain as the sun at noon that the Mayor was cognizant of all this corruption? How, indeed, could it be otherwise, when it was only through the corruption in that quarter that bribery became the fashion in the borough. He would proceed to read a statement which would, he was satisfied, prove to the House the abundant existence of corruption in the conduct of electors in the boo ugh of Liverpool. If it did not, he should be quite satisfied to relinquish the second reading of the Bill. The noble Lord (Sandon) knew, that he alone had stood in the gap at the disgraceful election of 1830—that election which the hon. member for Newark had very properly said, had entailed eternal disgrace on the electors of Liverpool. In 1827, the number of freemen bribed at the election for Members of Parliament was 1,833; in 1832, 1,748; and 1833, 1,611. That showed bribery by wholesale.—The hon. Member again referred to the evidence, in order to show that the amount of the sums paid in bribery had been very great. The hon. Member read the following extract from the report:—"From this book an analysis was made by Mr. Pennington, of the voters for Mr. Ewart who had received bribes at this election, and of the amounts paid them. The following is the result:—
852 "And, according to the same document the sum paid for votes by the friends of Mr. Ewart, was 19,603l., and the average price per vote 15l. The wholesale nature of the bribery at this election, is well illustrated by the evidence of some of the canvassers. Mr. Thomas Taylor states that, out of fifty or sixty men whom he himself took up to the hustings, there was only one man who was not bribed; and that, in his district alone, between 700l. and 800l. were spent in direct bribery." He must add that the extent of disfranchisement under the Bill before the House would not be nearly so great as was supposed. At the election in 1833 the number of freemen who voted and were not bribed was, 1,748, and, of these no less than 1,451, were registered as ten-pound householders, so that only 297 innocent men would be actually disfranchised. That number was the result of the calculation of the corporation officer, in his opinion, not 100 innocent burgesses would be disfranchised by the Bill. In conclusion the hon. Member said, that he gave his most cordial support to the Motion, and he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time, for by doing so it would show that a bribed and corrupt constituency was not beyond the reach of a Reformed Parliament.
600 freemen received. £10 and under. 462 between 10 and 20. 209 20 and 30. 24 30 and 40. 7 40 and 50. 1 60. 1,303
§ Dr. Nichollthought, that a very few words would explain away the charges which had been urged with so much vehemence, and he must say with so much absurd acrimony, by the hon. Member. When the subject was last before the House, as well as on the present occasion, the hon. Gentleman said, that Mr. Wright did not dare to answer the questions put to him. But he recollected that in the last Committee, a question was put to Mr. Wright as to the former prevalence of bribery at the elections in that town, when the nominee for the petitioners objected to the question, on the ground that the Committee were not called upon to go into that subject. He was satisfied that a careful reading of the evidence would completely exonerate Mr. Wright from the charge brought against him and he thought, that it was of great importance that the character of a functionary like the Mayor of Liverpool should be relieved from such imputations as had been thrown out against him. He denied altogether the allegation of the hon. Member as to the extent of corruption in Liverpool, 853 or that 2,000 persons ever received bribes. He contended that the evidence given as to that matter did not in the slightest degree warrant the inferences which the hon. Member had drawn. He had never denied, and his noble friend (Lord Sandon) had never denied, that great bribery prevailed in the election of 1830. They all admitted the fact and the House was cognizant of the corruption that took place at that time as well as in 1827; but the last Committee which had been appointed by the House on the subject of the elections at Liverpool was not directed to investigate the extent of bribery which prevailed at those elections, but was appointed to inquire whether corruption had prevailed since the election in 1830. Now he would venture to say, that it had been clearly established by the evidence taken before that Committee that in the five last elections, namely, two for Mayors and three for Members of Parliament, no bribery prevailed, unless those isolated cases were excepted which it was stated had been proved before a former Committee. The amount of money stated to be distributed was said to be 48l., and from this it was admitted that 14l. should be deducted. It appeared that this money had been distributed to working men who had lost a day's or half a day's work in order to vote. Now, he would venture to say, that it was perfectly notorious that, in every constituency in the country, wages on the day of election were given to those men who voted for the candidate supported by their masters, and they were not expected to work. In conclusion he trusted the House would reject the Bill as uncalled for and inflicting unmerited punishment.
§ Lord Sandonhad no wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily; but he felt anxious to make a few observations in reply to the various charges brought against the freemen of Liverpool. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Wason) went out of his way to make an unprovoked and unwarranted attack on two most honourable individuals, whose characters had hitherto stood unimpeached. The hon. Member had not the excuse that what fell from him had been occasioned by the heat of debate, as the hon. Member had not spoken in reply. That, however, was a sample of the feeling which had prevailed during the last two years 854 on the subject. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have gone out of his way to make attacks on the characters of such honourable men as Mr. Wright and Mr. Foster. The hon. Gentleman talked as if there were no manner of doubt that the Town Clerk and Mayor had been proved to have been actually engaged in acts of bribery; but he hoped that the House would not go away with the impression that evidence taken before the Committee bore out the inference which only the hon. Member had drawn. He would shortly address himself to the observations of the hon. member for Wiltshire, of whom he had nothing to complain. That hon. Gentleman had not indulged in exasperating language or sweeping accusations, but had made the statement which he felt himself called upon to address to the House in a way worthy of his high character. Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman was the chairman of the Election Committee of 1830, and was directed by that Committee to bring the case under the attention of the House. When, however, the hon. Gentleman got once engaged in the subject, it became a favourite matter with him, and he had persisted in urging it to a conclusion. He however, thought that his hon. friend had before that time felt reason to regret the course he had taken and had so long persevered in. Before he proceeded further, he would allude to an observation of the hon. member for Ipswich. That hon. Member asked whether bribers should be exempted from punishment? He was ready to answer, "Certainly not;" but the Bill before the House would leave the really culpable parties, namely, those who had given bribes and promoted corruption, unpunished, whilst it was proposed to take the elective franchise from the miserable victims who would no longer consent to be bribed. The large towns were naturally desirous of having the privilege of returning Members to Parliament. The possession of the elective franchise was considered by them as an honour, and the privation of it a disgrace. The hon. Member for Wilts thought that, notwithstanding the measures which had passed that House on the subject of the elective franchise the hon. Member was bound to proceed with his Bill; but he must say that he entertained a very 855 different opinion. The House, having gone into the inquiry, surely could not now refuse to take cognizance of the result of that inquiry; and if it were to act upon the investigation which had taken place he did not see upon what principles they could pass a measure such as the one under consideration. There were two paragraphs of the Report of the Committee which the hon. member for Wilts had brought under the notice of the House. The one stated that during the period which intervened from the 28th of May, 1831, to the 8th of July, 1832, two elections had taken place in the borough without any act of bribery having been committed; and the other described the beneficial effects which the suspension of the writ had produced. Since the transaction implicating the burgesses, there had occurred two elections for the office of Mayor, which had also been inquired into without anything like bribery having been proved against the voters; and although these elections differed in many respects from elections for Members to serve in Parliament, yet, if purity was found to exist in them there could be no reason for supposing that corruption would exist in the other. The hon. member for Wilts had asserted, that the Committee were of opinion that a great deal of bribery took place during the election of 1832. He denied, however, that the fact had been proved. Some cases of bribery might have occurred, but he was prepared to show that they were not numerous. The charge of bribery on that occasion could not affect more than from ten to twenty freemen out of 850; and he would ask any hon. Gentleman present who felt it to be his duty to protect the interests of his constituency, and defend the rights of the electors, whether, upon such evidence, they would be justified in disfranchising this borough, and giving currency to an opinion that the rights of freemen were held upon a more feeble and insecure tenure than the rights of other classes of voters? The object of the Reform Bill was to preserve vested rights, and that House was now asked to take a step that would, in his opinion, amount to a clandestine surrender of the vested rights of the freemen of Liverpool. He must say, that such a proceeding would be wholly unworthy of the feelings which ought to actuate the present Parliament. The hon. member for Wilts had 856 said, that the course which he had taken was usual in cases of this description, but on this point he differed from the hon. Gentleman. With the exception of Grampound, he believed a very opposite course had been taken, in reference to those boroughs in which corruption had been proved. Instead of disfranchising them, the number of the constituency in each case had been increased; and a disfranchising measure like the present never could be necessary for Liverpool, where it was proved, an end had already been put—by the enlargement of the constituency—to that corruption which had formerly prevailed. It would be manifestly unjust that the innocent as well as the guilty should be punished; and when they found, that a single case of corruption had not occurred during the recent elections in that borough, it was not too much for them to infer, that the abuse had already been corrected. At all events he must say that, with the evidence before them, they had no right whatever to go into transactions which had taken place previous to the Reform Act. And, moreover, if punishment were to be inflicted, it should fall on the tempters as well as the tempted, and the rich should suffer equally with the poor. The Reformed Parliament had heard much about the rights of the people; but he would ask, whether taking away the suffrages of the poor, and conferring them upon the rich, for the purpose of ensuring the return of a particular candidate, would be an act of justice, or in keeping with the professions which that House had so repeatedly made to the country? He had never been an advocate of corruption, and when the charge of bribery against the borough of Liverpool was first brought forward, he admitted, that if it were established, it would be the duty of that House to apply a remedy to the evil with as little delay as possible. He would not screen those voters who had been guilty of bribery from the punishment they deserved; and he begged the House to believe, that he defended only those whom he knew to be pure. He rested their vindication upon the result of an inquiry into the particular cases, which had been satisfactory to his mind. He therefore would oppose the Bill to the utmost, and would move as an amendment "That it be read a second time that day six months."
§ Mr. Rotchhoped the House would hear him for a few moments, while he repelled an attack which had been made on an hon. friend of his, who was not there to defend himself. He knew that Gentleman well, and a more just, honourable, and worthy individual did not exist than Mr. Wright. He was inculpated in a grave charge for seeking to induce a person named Downey to espouse the cause of Mr. Porter, during his contest for the Mayoralty of the town. The charge was not borne out; and he regretted the hon. member for Ipswich should have made himself a party to such a charge. Never was the "ridiculus mus" better exemplified. The accusation must fall to the ground. He regretted the case of the borough was confined within such narrow limits; it should have been taken upon its broadest scale. There could be no doubt but that bribery and corruption had prevailed in Liverpool, to a great and disgraceful extent. It was as clear as day that the freemen were in the habit of openly selling their votes. He remembered in 1827, that the Quarter Sessions were put off for an entire week, in consequence of the election of Mayor then going forward. The noble Lord had said there was only an item of 48l. for bribery in the Report which he had held in his hand. True there was that item, but then there were also sums stated to the amount of 20,000l., 30,000l., and 40,000l. the price of the votes of the freemen of Liverpool. At most, however, it would not now be entirely disfranchised, and the House was called upon by the Bill to deal most moderately with the freemen. They certainly would be disfranchised as freemen, but then they might fall back upon the franchise which they had acquired under the Reform Act.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid, that he should oppose the Bill on the broad and plain ground, that having settled the constituency of Liverpool under the Reform Bill, they should not interfere and disturb that arrangement, unless it was shown that there had been some subsequent occurrence to justify them in doing so. No such occurrence had been brought to light, and he therefore should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord.
§ Mr. Hesketh Fleetwoodsaid, that having property in the county in which Liverpool was situated, and being well acquainted with the circumstances of that 858 county, though perfectly unconnected with the parties chiefly interested in the Bill, he was desirous of stating the grounds upon which he felt the present case ought to be decided, sincerely wishing, as he did, to see it divested of those party and personal feelings, which appeared to have so carried away the course of the present debate from the true question before the House. He hoped, in making the few observations with which he felt it his duty to trouble the House, that they would bear with him while he confined himself to the simple task of saying a few words for those who had not many advocates in that House; and that if he had not the tact to express as concisely as older Members might, the remarks he had to make, they would, he trusted, remember, that that must come from experience and practice, but it would be his earnest endeavour to occupy as little of their time as possible. There never was a case more truly founded in justice than that of which he was then the humble but sincere advocate; independently of which there were many reasons, on the score of expediency, which alone ought to have prevented such a Bill being at present brought forward. Let them look, in the first place, at the justice of the present proceeding. That was the first Reformed Parliament, and though he did not then see on the Treasury Bench the Ministers upon whose responsibility the measure of Reform was introduced, yet he trusted, that they would not be parties to nullifying the great Act to which they owed their Ministerial existence. It was one which conferred upon numerous and wealthy masses of men the benefits of being represented, and it annihilated in a great measure nomination—it gave representation to those who were justly entitled to that privilege, and abstracted it from such as possessed no claims—it was that, or it was nothing—that was its great pretension; and small must be considered its performance, if it failed in that. Let it then have a fair trial. It professed to punish the guilty. Liverpool, if guilty, was so before the Reform Act was introduced. Why acquit that town, by then passing it over, and now falsify their own act, when the great boast of the measure was, that it inflicted punishment for the past, and afforded security for the future. He would not delay the House by calling their attention 859 to the several Reports, as they had already been noticed by the noble Lord the member for Liverpool, though at a loss to discover how they could bring in a Bill to disfranchise a whole class, notwithstanding that the Report which surely ought to be the only ground of legislation, had declared that the bribery was not extensive or systematic. In considering the present measure, the House should, however, bear in mind that all proceedings of that sort were in the nature of bills of pains and penalties, and assumed much of the character of a judicial proceeding. Would the House condemn a whole for the guilt of a part? An authority often quoted in that House—he meant Mr. Burke, of whose wisdom alike the youngest and the most experienced availed themselves—Burke had said: "You cannot prefer a bill of indictment against a whole community." This remark of that eminent man had grown almost into a proverb; and let it never be forgotten that the body against whose rights the present Bill was directed, actually were numerous enough to be called a community, and were at the same time so poor, as to deserve the especial protection of the legislature; for, in this land of freedom and equal rights, the law was "no respecter of persons"—all men were alike entitled to its fostering protection. He wished that the present Reformed Parliament would condescend to derive something from the wisdom of their ancestors—even from times not long gone by—times which cordially responded to the truly constitutional principles so eloquently uttered by the older and the greater William Pitt—times which, with all their faults, had as much respect for the rights of the poor as could be found in the boasted enlightenment of the nineteenth century—times which, at least, bad the virtue to feel "that the rights of the poor are as precious in the eye of the law, as the proudest privileges of the rich: the poor man's cottage is his castle; the winds may sweep around it; the rain may penetrate its imperfect shelter, but the highest noble in the land may not, with impunity, lift even its latch, or tread with offence upon the hem of its owner's garment." Quoting from memory, he professed not to give the exact words, but the sentiment should be ever present to the minds of British Legislators. His Majesty's Ministers had legislated so as to give increased 860 power to the interest of a mere middle class—taking away influence from many who had large stakes in the country, and refusing to impart any privileges to the opposite extreme of society—in each of whom he fully believed, and he was not alone in the opinion, that as great an amount of public spirit, and as large a proportion of the national energy were to be found, as in the favoured class of the Reform Act; an Act that, speaking generally, had stricken the poor voters to the earth; it was, to say the least of it, bad enough in that respect, whatever it might be in others, and let them not make bad worse, by saying to the people of Liverpool, "We will punish the innocent and the guilty without discrimination—we will make one class, (the middle class, every thing; the operative and gentleman nothing. We will give our assent to a Bill, which, however it may in its preamble profess to punish bribery, does, in fact, allow the weight of its vengeance to fall not on guilt but on poverty."
Mr. Handleysaid, that he had been a member of the Committee, and he thought Mr. Foster had given his evidence in the frankest manner possible. He regretted that the hon. member for Ipswich should have taken this opportunity for making an attack upon that Gentleman's character.
§ Mr. Thomas Gladstonedefended the present Mayor of Liverpool and Mr. Foster from the attacks which had been made upon them. There were no names in Liverpool which stood higher both in point of integrity and respectability, than the names of those individuals. He strongly deprecated the language which had been used with regard to them.
An hon. Member,who had also been a member of the Committee, bore his testimony to the frankness with which Mr. Foster gave his evidence before them.
§ Mr. John O'Connellsupported the Bill, on the ground that the existence of general and extensive corruption had been proved in the borough of Liverpool.
§ Mr. Benettbriefly replied. The hon. Member said, that the cause which had been placed in his hands, had the support of most respectable individuals in Liverpool, who were only anxious, in seeking this measure, to secure the purity of election in that borough.
§ The House divived on the Amendment: Ayes, 38; Noes, 190—Majority 152.
861§ Main question agreed to, and Bill read I a second time.
| List of the NOES. | |
| ENGLAND. | Heneage, G. H. |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Heathcote, J. |
| Astley, Sir J. | Hill, M. D. |
| Attwood, T. | Hodges, T. L. |
| Bainbridge, E. T. | Hoskins, K. |
| Beaumont, T. W. | Hume, J. |
| Barnard, E. G. | Hurst, R. H. |
| Bewes, J. B. | Hutt, W. |
| Biddulph, R. M. | Keppel, Major G. |
| Bish, T. | King, E. B. |
| Blackburne, J. | Kennedy, J. |
| Bouverie, Hon. D. | Langdale, Hon. C. |
| Blake, Sir F. | Lefevre, C. S. |
| Blount, Sir C. R. | Lennard, T. R. |
| Boiling, W. | Lennox, Lord G. |
| Boss, J. | Lester, B. L. |
| Briggs, R. | Lister, E. |
| Brocklehurst, J. | Lloyd, H. |
| Brodie, W. B. | Locke, W. |
| Brotherton, J. | Mangles, J. |
| Buckingham, J. S. | Marshall, J. |
| Buller, C. | Methuen, P. |
| Bulwer, H. L. | Mildmay, P. St. J. |
| Carter, J. B. | Molesworth, Sir W. |
| Cayley, E. S. | Moreton, A. H. |
| Chichester, J. P. B. | Morrison, J. |
| Clive, E. B. | Mosley, Sir O. |
| Collier, J. | Mostyn, Hon. E. M. |
| Cotes, J. | Parker, J. |
| Crawford, W. | Parrott, J. |
| Crompton, J. S. | Pease, J. |
| Davies, Col. | Philips, M. |
| Dawson, E. | Ponsonby, Hn. W. F. |
| Divett, E. | Potter, R. |
| Donkin, Sir R. | Poulter, J. |
| Dundas, Capt. | Pryme, G. |
| Dundas, Hon. J. C. | Rice, T. S. |
| Dykes, F. L. | Richards, J. |
| Ellice, Rt. Hon. E. | Rickford, W. |
| Ellis, W. | Rippon, C. |
| Etwall, R. | Robinson, G. R. |
| Evans, W. | Roebuck, J. A. |
| Evans, Col. | Rolfe, R. M. |
| Faithfull, G. | Romilly, E. |
| Fenton, J. | Romilly, J. |
| Fielden, J. | Rooper, J. B. |
| Fielden, W. | Rotch, B. |
| Folkes, Sir W. | Russell, Lord |
| Fort, J. | Scott, Sir E. |
| Fryer, R. | Scrope, P. |
| Gaskell, D. | Shawe, R. N. |
| Gisborne, T. | Shepherd, T. |
| Glynne, Sir S. R. | Smith, J. A. |
| Godson, R. | Smith, J. |
| Gordon, R. | Stanley, Hon. H. T. |
| Goring, H. D. | Stanley, E. J. N. |
| Grant, Right Hn. R. | Strickland, Sir G. |
| Grey, Hon. Col. | Strutt, E. |
| Grote, G. | Talbot, H. Fox |
| Guest, J. J. | Talmash, A. G. |
| Hall, B. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Handley, B. | Tayleur, W. |
| Hardy, J. | Tennyson, Charles |
| Harland, W. C. | Thicknesse, R. |
| Thomson, C. P. | Steuart, R. |
| Throckmorton, R. G. | Wallace, R. |
| Todd, R. | IRELAND. |
| Tooke, W. | Barron, H. W. |
| Tower, C. T. | Barry, G. S. |
| Tracy, C. H. | Bellew, R. M. |
| Trelawney, W. L. S. | Blake, M. |
| Troubridge, Sir E. | Butler, Hon. Col. |
| Turner, W. | Evans, George |
| Tynte, C. J. K. | Finn, W. F. |
| Verney, Sir H. | Fitzgerald, T. |
| Vincent, Sir F. | Fitzsimon, C. |
| Walker, R. | Jacob, E. |
| Walter, J. | Knox, Hon. Col. |
| Warburton, H. | Lalor, P. |
| Ward, H. G. | O'Connell, D. |
| Warre, J. A. | O'Connell, M. |
| Waterpark, Lord | O'Connell, J. |
| Watkins, L. V. | O'Connell, M. |
| Wedgwood, J. | O'Dwyer, A. C. |
| Whitmore, W. W. | Roche, D. |
| Wigney, J. N. | Roe, J. |
| Wilbraham, G. | Ruthven, E. S. |
| Williams, W. A. | Ruthven, E. |
| Williams, Colonel | Sheil, R. L. |
| Windham, W. H. | Vigors, N. A. |
| Wood, Chas. | Walker, C. A. |
| Young, G. F. | Wallace, T. |
| SCOTLAND. | PAIRED OFF. |
| Adams, Admiral | Abercromby, J. |
| Dalmeny, Lord | Brougham, W. |
| Fergusson, R. C. | Browne, D. |
| Hallyburton, D. G. | Bowes, T. |
| Hay, Colonel A. L. | Clay, W. |
| Jeffrey, F. | Elliot, Capt. |
| Mackenzie, J. A. S. | Ferguson, Sir R. |
| Murray, J. A. | Gillon, W. D. |
| Oliphant, L. | Hawes, B. |
| Ormelie, Earl of | Pendarves, E. W. |
| Oswald, R. A. | Paget, C. |
| Oswald, J. | Watson, R. |
| Parnell, Sir H. | TELLERS. |
| Pringle, R. | Benett, J. |
| Sharp, General | Wason, R. |
| List of the AYES. | |
| Baillie, J. E. | Hanmer, Col. |
| Bentinck, Lord G. | Hayes, Sir E. |
| Bethell, R. | Herbert, Hon. S. |
| Blackstone, W. S. | Hodgson, J. |
| Blaney, Hon. Capt. | Hope, H. T. |
| Chapman, A. | Inglis, Sir R. |
| Christmas, W. | Irton, S. |
| Darlington, Earl of | Lowther, Hon. H. C. |
| Dillwyn, L. W. | Marryat, J. |
| Eastnor, Viscount | Meynell, Capt. |
| Egerton, W. T. | Ryle, J. |
| Estcourt, T. G. B. | Somerset, Lord G. |
| Finch, G. | Verner, Col. W. |
| Fleetwood, Capt. | Villiers, Viscount |
| Forester, Hon. C. W. | Wall, C. B. |
| Gaskell, J. M. | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Gladstone, T. | TELLERS. |
| Gladstone, W. E. | Sandon, Lord |
| Greene, T. | Nicholl, J. |
| Halcombe, J. | PAIRED OFF. |
| Halford, H. | Fazakerley, T. |
| Hanmer, Sir J. | Fremantle, Sir T. |
| Grimston, Lord | Ross, C. |
| Herries, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Stanley, J. |
| Houldsworth, T. | Stuart, Lord D. |