§ On the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on this Bill being read,
Mr. Hodgsonrose to move the instruction to the Committee of which he had given notice. The first object which he had in view was to inflict punishment not merely on those who had been guilty of receiving bribes, but on those who, in his opinion, and he was sure in the opinion of the House, were still more deserting of punishment—namely, those who had been guilty of giving bribes. His second object was to limit the punishment to those free- 105 men who had been proved before the Committee to have been guilty of taking bribes. His third object was to prevent those who should be disfranchised as freemen from being enabled still, under the cover of another franchise, to vote at the election of Representatives for Liverpool. As great disgust had been justly expressed by hon. Members at the exposure of those who had been guilty of giving the bribes in this instance, those hon. Members, he trusted, would take the opportunity now afforded them for punishing all such persons. With respect to the second object which he had in view, he believed that very few of the guilty amongst the freemen of Liverpool would escape, if they limited the punishment of disfranchisement to those freemen who it had been proved before the Committee had taken bribes. His object, in a great degree, was to render this Bill conformable to one of the leading provisions in the Bill lately introduced by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) for the prevention of bribery and corruption. The plea in this instance for disfranchising the whole of the freemen of Liverpool was, that the majority of them had been proved to have been guilty of bribery. Now, he could very well understand such a plea if the total disfranchisement of Liverpool was proposed, and if it were, under such circumstances, contended that the majority was so corrupt, that there was no chance of obtaining a pure constituency. In such a case it might he necessary to sacrifice the innocent equally with the guilty; but he would contend that they should not unnecessarily, as was proposed by this Bill, narrow the constituency of Liverpool beyond the disfranchisement of those who had been proved to have been guilty of corruption. There were 840 of the freemen against whom no such charge had been made, and yet this Bill proposed to take their franchise from them. It should be recollected, besides, that numbers had been since admitted to the freedom of that borough, and that upwards of 1,000 freemen, since the existence of corruption in Liverpool had been proved, had exercised their franchise without having had any share in it. He would put it to the justice of the House whether it would disfranchise those 1,000 freemen merely for the sake of establishing an uniform constituency in Liverpool. Another object of his instruction was, to prevent those who should on account of their corruption be disfran- 106 chised as freemen from still voting under the cover of another franchise. There would be 550 persons from whom they would take away their franchise as freemen, who would still vote as 10l. householders. Would that be doing justice? The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That it be an instruction to the Committee to limit the operation of the Bill to those persons whose guilt had been proved before Committees of that House; and to make provision that all persons who had been proved before such Committees to have been guilty of giving or receiving bribes at the elections of Members of Parliament for the borough of Liverpool, should be rendered incapable of voting at any future election for that borough."
§ Mr. Benettobserved, that there was this material difference between the provision contained in Lord John Russell's Bill, and that which the hon. Member now proposed—that the former would have only a prospective operation, while the hon. Member's proposition was open to all the objections to which an ex post facto law was liable. He did not want to make his Bill a bill of pains and penalties, as this instruction, if adopted, would render it. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the franchise as a right. He (Mr. Benett) would never admit it to be such. It was a trust reposed in certain persons, and when they abused it, it was no punishment to take it from them, and to impose it upon others. In fact, by doing so the House released them from a duty which they had proved themselves unfitted to perform. The hon. Member said, that it would be unjust to disfranchise 840 freemen who had not been proved guilty of bribery. He did not believe that the number was so great, but he had to remark that it was proved clearly before the Committee that 2,681 freemen had been guilty of bribery. Now, the principle uniformly acted upon in such cases, in that and in the other House of Parliament, was, when the majority was proved to be corrupt to disfranchise the whole. He had only to add, that if this instruction should be carried, it would defeat the object of the Bill.
§ Sir Henry Willoughbysupported the instruction. He thought that the Reform Bill should be looked upon as an amnesty, and that corruption that had occurred previous to its passing should not be made the ground of a legislative measure now, 107 the more especially as the great majority of those freemen had, in the last three elections for Liverpool, exercised their franchise in a pure manner, and as nothing had taken place in the course of those elections upon which any legislative proceeding could be founded. It could not be doubted that hundreds of the freemen of Liverpool had exercised their elective franchise at the election of 1830, without having been in the smallest degree connected with the bribery and corruption which was alleged; and it was a fact equally indisputable that those who had been bribed had, under the Reform Bill, exercised the franchise with the men whose votes had been purely given in an antecedent election. The instruction to the Committee, which had been moved by the hon. member for Newcastle, went to the disfranchisement of individuals who would be a living monument of the justice of the Legislature, and was most decidedly preferable to the sweeping measure for disfranchising those who, it was admitted on all hands, had not been concerned in the transactions of the election in the year 1830. He acquiesced in the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Newcastle, that the course he proposed to pursue was not without precedent, and he would instance the case of Shoreham, when Mr. Fox pressed this course upon the attention of the House, and the names of the disfranchised individuals were actually stated in the Bill. A similar course was the right and proper mode to restore health to the elective franchise in the borough of Liverpool, and, on the contrary, he was persuaded that if the House should choose to disfranchise the whole body of electors by right of freedom, it would engender universal dissatisfaction in the public mind. He hoped the House would not hesitate to accede to the instruction moved by the hon. member for Newcastle, as it afforded the best means of punishing the guilty parties, and of affording a warning to others who might in a similar manner be tempted. On all these grounds, he should support the Motion of instruction to the Committee on the Bill.
§ Mr. Aglionbywas of opinion, that although the Special Committee had been justified in finding that bribery and corruption had not prevailed in the borough of Liverpool to so great an extent since the passing of the Reform Bill, still no doubt could exist as to its having formerly 108 prevailed to a very considerable extent. It seemed to him impossible that the House would act with perfect justice if the provisions of the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Wiltshire were limited to the individuals who had been proved guilty of corrupt practices, and did not extend to the freemen generally.
§ Lord Sandoncould neither give his assent to the Bill, nor to the instruction which had been moved by the hon. member for Newcastle. The elective franchise was as dear to the poor man as it was to the more wealthy of his fellow-subjects. He stood upon the broad ground of the injustice of the proceeding altogether, and especially after such a purification of the borough as had been brought about by the Reform Act.
§ Dr. Nichollregretted, that he should differ on the present occasion from the noble Lord, but thinking as he did that the Bill was of undue severity, he should adopt the instruction proposed, as being of a mitigating character, in preference to the whole Bill as it at present stood.
Mr. Ewart Gladstonethought the Bill proposed was one of great hardship, and especially when brought forward at such a distance of time since the transactions from which it had arisen. He should support the instructions moved by the hon. member for Newcastle, as the most judicious alternative between the extreme points of opinion which at present prevailed.
§ The House divided on the Motion—Ayes 14; Noes 106: Majority 92.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Campbell, Sir H. P. | Maxwell, H. |
| Curteis, E. B. | Patten, J. W. |
| Egerton, W. T. | Pigot, R. |
| Fancourt, Major | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Gaskell, J. M. | TELLERS. |
| Gladstone, W. E. | Hodgson, J. |
| Gladstone, T. | Nicholl, J. |
| Hawkes, T. | PAIRED OFF. |
| Inglis, Sir R. | Blackstone, W. S. |
| Jermyn, Earl | Bruce, Lord E. |
§ Question again put.
§ Lord George BentinckOn former occasions I have objected to the second readings of this Bill, on the ground that its principle is to make one law for the rich and another for the poor. The Amendment, on the contrary, which I shall have the honour to submit to the House, will operate to the disfranchisement of guilty rich men, equally with the disfranchise- 109 ment of those that are poor. The effect, Sir, of the Bill now before the House is nominally, I admit, to disfranchise 3,628 freemen, of whom 1,882 have been proved to have received bribes,—together with 1,800 apprentices, who, being actually enrolled, would, by servitude, be intitled very shortly to their freedom,—thus making altogether 5,428 persons nominally to be deprived of rights of which they have either actual or inchoate possession; but, practically, as my hon. friend, the member for Wiltshire well knows, of this number the Bill goes to screen 801 freemen of wealth and station, who, in 1832, were registered in the double capacity of freemen and of 10l. householders; yet no fewer than 550 of these wealthier freemen have been actually proved, by the undoubted evidence of Mr. Pennington's book, to have been guilty even of grosser bribery than that of their poorer fellow burgesses. In reality, therefore, the proposition of my hon. friend would only practically disfranchise 4,627 persons of their rights; though, at the same time, it would embrace in that number not only the 1,800 apprentices, but also 196 freemen who have taken up their freedom subsequent to the period when the bribery complained of is alleged to have taken place, and who are consequently equally unobnoxious with the 1,800 apprentices, even to so much as an accusation of taint or corruption; and, I have further to remind the House, Sir, that of these 4,627 persons to be wholly disfranchised by the Bill, no more than 1,332 are proved to have been guilty of bribery. The object of my Amendment, Sir, is to save the rights of these 1,800 apprentices, and of those 196 freemen, who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, even be charged with corruption, whilst, at the same time, it will not only include in its disfranchisement those 550 wealthy and guilty individuals to whom I have before referred, but it will go also to the disfranchisement of all those persons, who, under the designation of Captains, Lieutenants, and Canvassers, amounting in number to about 168, as nearly as I can estimate them, did the work of corruption at the Election of 1830;—it will also include about forty gentlemen who formed the two adverse Electioneering Committees, making 758 wealthy individuals, who, under favour of the 10l. Clause in the Reform Bill, would otherwise be most im- 110 properly screened from those consequences, which, in common justice, ought to overtake them equally with the poorer freemen. And here, Sir, I cannot but call the attention of the House to the last paragraph of the Report of the Select Committee, which says,—'That your Committee cannot conclude its Report without directing the attention of your honourable House to the conduct of freemen in a better class of life and in good circumstances, who have shown fully as much readiness to take bribes as the poorest and most destitute of their fellow burgesses.' Why, Sir, after this Report, if our object he to prevent and to punish bribery, is it common sense or common justice to protect and to screen "those freemen in the better class of life and in good circumstances" who have shown the most readiness to take bribes, whilst we pursue with relentless vengeance the poorest and most destitute only, who have displayed rather less eagerness than their more wealthy fellow-burgesses to commit the crime we are about to punish? But I wont rest my case alone upon the Report of the Committee, but I beg to call the attention of the House to the manner in which that Report is justified by the evidence upon which it was founded. I will first quote that of Mr. Joseph Myers, who was the electioneering agent of Mr. Ewart.—This gentleman states in his evidence, that no less then 34,000l. passed through his hands in payments chiefly as bribes to voters during the canvass and election of 1830. Being asked to name the description of persons who took bribes at that election, and the usual amount of them, he tells the Committee that the highest price he paid for a vote was 50l. to a gentleman of the name of Orme, a retired brewer. He next speaks of a person named Wynn, a Captain in the Militia, who received either 30l. or 35l, he did not exactly recollect which. Thirdly, he narrates the case of a Mr. Miller, whom he represents as a "very respectable gentleman," worth, he should suppose, 8,000l. or 10,000l., who nevertheless sold his vote for 12l.!!! In reference to this evidence, Mr. Myers is asked by the Committee this question: "Did persons of that description of respectability get the highest sum, or did the lowest class?" Mr. Myers' remarkable answer was, "I think the middling class got the best because they kept off, as far as I can speak." That 111 there might be no mistake in the matter, he was then asked the further question, "Then, in fact, according to your statement, there was more corruption in the middle and better classes than in the lower class?" His answer was, "I should be of that opinion;—that, there was quite as much, certainly." Now, Sir, are we really to consent to the Bill of my hon. friend, the member for Wiltshire, which spares the retired brewer, Mr. Orme; which protects Captain Wynn, of the militia; which saves that other "very respectable gentleman," Mr. Miller, worth 8,000l, or 10,000l.; and which screens the middle and better class, "who got the best sums because they kept off," whilst we confine our punishment to the poorer class, who are thus proved, of the two, to have been the least corrupt? Another gentleman, most competent to speak upon the subject, (Mr. Pennington) was asked, "Amongst what class of persons was the corruption the greatest,—amongst the freemen or the shopkeepers and persons in the better stations of life? To which his answer was;—"I should think it prevailed certainly among persons in the better stations of life to a very considerable extent." There is abundance of other evidence throughout the Report which puts it beyond a doubt, that the wealthier classes were more corrupt than the poorer; and when I have called the attention of the House to the evidence of Mr. John Atkinson, one of the canvassers at this election, I am sure it will never consent to punish the poor and spare the wealthy. Every Gentleman who has read the evidence will recollect, that Mr. John Atkinson says, that he called upon a poor freeman, of the name of Thomas Sefton. This man had promised to vote for the opposite party, but had not actually voted; as a matter of course, it became Mr. Atkinson's duty, as a canvasser, to endeavour, by means of bribery, to seduce this man over to the side of his own party; Sefton refused to listen to any such proposal. Mr. Atkinson then offered him a bribe of 50l.; Sefton still refused to take it;—and it was not till, as Mr. Atkinson himself says, "he had put him out of his way and worked upon his feelings," that he could be prevailed with to break his former promise in consideration of this proffered bribe of 50l. And how does Mr. Atkinson tell the Committee that he did work upon this poor freeman's feel- 112 ings? Why, he got the man's wife to interfere, and it was only when she cried out to her husband, "Oh Thomas, look at my poor children," that he could be induced to take the 50l. for his vote. Mr. Atkinson is then asked, if the man after this went willingly to vote? His reply was, "that he was terribly distressed in mind, so much so that he thought he would have fainted in his way to the hustings!!!" Is there, then, I ask, Sir, any comparison between the immorality of this poor man, and that of Mr. John Atkinson? And here I beg leave to remind the House, that when Mr. Atkinson is asked whether or not he lives in a 10l. house, his reply is, that his house is worth a great deal more;—he tells you too, by the way, that his father lives in a house worth above 50l., and yet he tells you also that he bribed his own father with a sum of 10l.; upon which he makes no other observation beyond "that his father, like other men, was fond of money." Where, then, is the justice of the Bill brought in by my hon. friend, when it screens this Mr. John Atkinson and his father in the enjoyment of all their rights and privileges, whilst it sacrifices these miserable victims of Mr. Atkinson's corruption? And let the House not fail to mark, that Mr. John Atkinson informs the Committee that, bad as he was, "He was only one of a hundred," or, in other words, that there were a hundred canvassers who all did as he did; yet all these are to escape, whilst the poor are to be punished. Sir, I have no wish to screen a single one of these poor freemen who can, by possibility, have gone astray. Let all be visited alike with the just resentment of this House, be they ever so poor or ever so rich, if they have done amiss. But, if we condescend to pry for corruption under the blue jacket of the common sailor and the smock frock of the day-labourer, let us not shrink from looking for it also under the broad cloth of the merchant, or even the magisterial robes of the ex-Mayors and Aldermen of Liverpool. And, sorry I am to say, Sir, that we find many who have been the first Magistrates of that town have been the foremost in instigating the inhabitants of Liverpool to acts of bribery and corruption; and, if they have done equal wrong, I would place the gentlemen, the merchants, and even the Magistrates of that borough, side by side at the bar of justice with the common sailors 113 and the poorest artisans; and, if I brand one with disgrace, so will I put on the other also the stamp of corruption. The effect of the instruction I propose to place in your hands, Sir, will be to catch those 550 freemen, consisting of the wealthy merchants, gentlemen, and shopkeepers of Liverpool, who are clearly proved by Mr. Pennington's list, to have accepted bribes in 1830. In addition to these, I shall catch the captains, the lieutenants, and canvassers, to the amount of 168, who were the bribers; and these, together with the forty gentlemen composing the two Committees on the adverse sides, will raise the number of freemen guilty either of bribing or of being bribed whom I should catch, but who are represented by the evidence before the Committee as persons who under my hon. friend's Bill would still retain their franchise as 10l. householders. Equally with my hon. friend's Bill the amendment will disfranchise the 1332 poor freemen who have been proved guilty of bribery making altogether 2,090 persons of those bribing or bribed in 1830 from whom I would take now and for ever the right of voting for Members of Parliament. I spare on the other hand, 196 persons who have received their freedom subsequently to the period when this bribery and corruption is alleged to have taken place. I spare also the vested and inchoate rights of those 1,800 apprentices actually enrolled. Every one of these rights (in all 1,996) I spare, and their possessors are men whom no one can accuse of having abused the elective franchise, for that best of all reasons that they had not then the power to exercise it. The whole result will be this, that whilst the Bill before the House disfranchises existing and inchoate rights to the number of 4,627, the clause I mean to propose (in substitution for that in the Bill) will disfranchise only 3,432 rights, being a less disfranchisement by 1,195 than that of the Bill;—whilst on the other side I allow no single culprit to escape me.
Before I put this Motion into your hands, Sir, I must request the attention of the House for a single moment to the preamble of the Bill as connected with the enacting Clause. The preamble of the Bill sets forth that, 'Whereas gross and notorious bribery and corruption has been proved to have long prevailed among the freemen of Liverpool at elec- 114 tions of Members to serve in Parliament for that Borough, it is therefore right and expedient that the said freemen should not vote or be entitled to vote at such elections. Be it enacted therefore.'—Sir, nothing could state better in point of principle than this, and one would have naturally concluded that the Bill would have proceeded to enact that none of those said persons so proved to have been guilty of gross bribery and corruption should vote or be entitled to vote hereafter at elections for Members of Parliament for the Borough of Liverpool;—but quite the contrary, Sir, the enacting Clause of this extraordinary Bill provides (as I have already shown) that a very large portion of those "said corrupt freemen" shall have their votes secured to them though under a different title, whilst those who formed no part of the "said corrupt freemen" are actually disfranchised!!! Why, Sir, the reasoning of the Bill seems to be this;—that because certain corrupt freemen referred to ought not to be entitled to vote, they shall be entitled to vote;—whilst in their stead 1,996 innocent persons who form no part of those said corrupt freemen and who ought to be entitled to vote shall not be entitled to vote!! I hope I have said enough to induce the House to consider well before it adopts the Bill in the shape in which it now stands. I am satisfied that if it goes forth to the country that this House is prepared to enact laws of harshness and severity when it has to deal with the misdemeanours of the poor, and laws of tender regard and indulgence, when it has to deal with the same crimes in the rich, the people of England will lose all respect and confidence in our proceedings and regard our measures as measures of tyranny;—for depend upon it, tyranny is not one whit the less oppressive, because it is exercised i by numbers instead of being wielded by r the hand of a single despot. I beg to move, Sir, that it be an instruction to the Committee to omit the enacting Clause as it now stands, and to substitute this Clause—'That no person who shall have become a burgess or freeman of the said Borough of Liverpool prior to the 1st of December, 1830, shall either as such burgess or freeman or in right of any other franchise whatever, vote or be entitled to vote in the election of a Member or Members to serve in the present 115 or any future Parliament for the said Borough.'
Mr. Hodgsondid not think the noble Lord's instruction was exactly like that which he had moved, and he could not support it. He could not consent to a proposal which would augment the punishment of the innocent.
§ Mr. John O'Connellexpressed his conviction that to press the clause would endanger the Bill.
§ Mr. Benettsuggested, that if the noble Lord wished to punish John Atkinson, it would be competent for him to bring in a Bill for that purpose. He hoped, however, that if the noble Lord did take this step, he would not stop at Mr. John Atkinson, but go higher, and not stop till he found out where the money came from. This measure would take the poor freemen out of the way of temptation.
Mr. Ewart Gladstoneagreed with the noble Lord, that there should not be one law for the rich and another for the poor, and yet some hard cases would occur under the instruction moved by the noble Lord. There was one fact stated, amid the corruption of the Liverpool election, in the conduct of Mr. Yates, which, in a great measure, redeemed the open bribery. That gentleman thought it his duty, in the face of the people and the candidates, to state that, where such open and unblushing corruption was practised, he should not vote on either side. It would be hard on him, and others similarly circumstanced, to be excluded from the franchise. The instruction of the noble Lord would not deal equally with the poor and with the rich. It dealt more severely with the latter, as it precluded the right of franchise which they might otherwise hereafter acquire—an acquisition which, it was well known, the poor man could not contemplate; and thus the penal portion of the instruction would, in one way, be incapable of affecting him.
§ Lord Sandonwas understood to say, that no proof of bribery against 850 of the freemen had been substantiated, and yet the House cheered at the prospect of punishing these innocent men.
§ Mr. Wasonmaintained, that there was no evidence before the House to show these 850 persons had not been bribed.
§ Lord Sandonsaid, that as this was a question of fact, he would leave it to the House to decide, from experience, which of the two, the hon. Member or himself, 116 was most likely to be cautious in making assertions on the subject?
§ Mr. Wasonwould ask the noble Lord either to point out that page of the Report which bore out his statements, or he would tell him, that his insinuation was what no honourable man would have given utterance to.
§ The SpeakerI am quite sure, that the hon. Member did not mean to express what his language would imply, and he must explain to the House what he meant by the employment of those phrases.
§ Mr. WasonI throw myself on the House. The noble Lord insinuated, that I was not as worthy of belief as the noble Lord. That insinuation, Sir, in deference to you as Chairman, though I may differ with you individually, in this House I treat lightly, but out of this House the noble Lord knows how I would treat it.
§ The SpeakerThe hon. Member speaks Parliamentarily, when he says, that the deference he pays is not to me but to the Chair. The interference I venture on on this occasion is a part of my duty as speaking in the name of the House. I now call on the hon. Member to explain language which is certainly most unparliamentary, and to say what he meant by the ambiguous sort of threat he threw out, which the hon. Member knows is never suffered in this House to pass without notice.
§ Mr. Wason.—Sir, I did not say that objected to you personally, but not to the Chair. I never made that statement, and I am sure, Sir, that you must have attributed such a statement to me unwillingly.
§ The Speaker.—The hon. Member must go further. He must explain to the House what he did say, and what he meant by the ambiguous threat he threw out.
§ Mr. Wason.—That was not the point which I—["Order, order," "Chair, chair."] The hon. member for Northampton may, in that cheer, call "Chair, chair," if he pleases. What am I to do? I was about to repeat the words I used before, and the hon. Member calls out, "Chair, chair." The words I used were these—that if the noble Lord meant to insinuate that my statement were not as worthy of belief as his own, no honourable man would have been guilty of such an insinuation; and, I think, that in saying this, I use as mild an expression as can be employed to throw back the insinuation.
§ The Speaker.—That is not the question. 117 I called on the hon. Member to explain, and I am sure he will respond to the call. He knows what that call means, and if he does not answer it, I must then name him to the House, and he knows what the consequences of my naming will be. The hon. Member says he throws himself on the House. It is from no personal feeling that I interfere. The hon. Member undertakes to put an interpretation on the language of another in stating himself convinced that an insinuation against his honour was intended. That has been contradicted. ["No, no," and cries of "Order," while Mr. Wason made a movement as if intending to rise.] I am glad to see the hon. Member prepared to rise, which he was not before. I heard the noble Lord express the negative. The hon. Member, however, has repeated the same injurious terms which he used before, and concluded by expressing an ambiguous threat. On both these points I call on him to say what he did mean.
§ Mr. Wason.—I think I now understand the position in which I am placed, which I did not before, for I did not hear the denial of the noble Lord. If the noble Lord will rise in his place and say, as a gentleman, in the face of this House, that he did not mean to convey ally such insinuation as I had inferred from his language, I shall readily apologize for anything I have said.
§ Lord Sandonsaid, as he was appealed to, he would repeat what he had said. He said that he would leave it to the House, from experience, to judge which was, he or the hon. Member, the more likely to be cautious in his assertions. He was alluding to a former assertion of the hon. Member respecting the Mayor and Town Clerk of Liverpool, and when he (Lord Sandon) denied the correctness of those remarks, and the hon. Member maintained them, he (Lord Sandon) said, that the assertions were not so cautious as to induce the house to believe the hon. Member before him (Lord Sandon). He meant to cast no imputation on the hon. Member's honour.
§ Mr. Wasonsaid, so careful was he not to insinuate anything against the Mayor and Corporation of Liverpool on the occasion referred to, that he actually read his statements from the printed evidence, and had tired the House with the documents. But the noble Lord had not yet given the explanation which he ought. Let him give 118 his word as a gentleman that he intended no offensive insinuation.
Mr. BulwerThe noble Lord said that the interpretation should not be put upon his words which the hon. member, for Ipswich put on them; he hoped that would be satisfactory.
Lord George Bentinck'sMotion was negatived, and the House went into Committee. The clauses of the Bill were read and agreed to, and the House resumed.