Lords Sitting of 1 May 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Hertford Borough.—Read a third time:—Trial of Offenders in London and Middlesex.
Petitions presented. By Lords SUFFIELD and TEYNHAM, from two Dissenting Congregations in London,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Lord SUFFIELD, from Bury, for an Alteration in the Sale of Beer Act.—By the Duke of NEWCASTLE, from several Graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, against any Alteration in the Laws as to Graduating: and from four Places, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws.—By Lord MONTAGU, from two Places, for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and the Bishops of EXETER, DURHAM, and LINCOLN,—from a Number of Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, he had several petitions to present to their Lordships on the important subject of the habitual violation of the Lord's Day by the people of this country. Their Lordships might, perhaps, think that, after the decision which the other House had come to last night upon this question, the petitions he had to present came rather late. He could not, however, persuade himself, that the Legislature would allow the Session to pass over without the adoption of some measure upon a subject in which the spiritual welfare of the people and the character of the country were so deeply involved. He was sorry, that indiscreet zeal on the part of well-meaning persons should have been the means of rendering abortive the attempts heretofore to legislate upon the subject. If it could be said, that in any matter the voice of the people was the voice of God, surely it was upon this question; and he thought the numerous petitions that had been sent up to Parliament from all parts of the country, and from all classes, ought not to be overlooked and treated with utter neglect. He, therefore, trusted, that the Session would not pass over without the production of some legislative measure to cheek he scandalous violations of the Sabbath
358
habitually practised, and particularly to the illicit traffic so generally carried on in defiance of the positive law of the land upon that day. He was most anxious to see secured to the poor man the advantages intended by the Almighty in the ordination of the Sabbath. These were rest from labour, and leisure to worship God, and meditate upon those things which concerned the eternal welfare of the human race. He hoped a Bill would yet be sent up from the other House, containing provisions for the attainment of these objects, free from all objection. In legislating upon this and all such subjects, it should be borne in mind that, to make a law such as it would be possible to carry into execution, it should not be charged with excessive penalties, or interfere too much with the personal liberty or domestic habits of the community. The most rev. Prelate presented a petition for the better observance of the Sabbath from Lambeth, signed by 2,347 persons, and from several other places.
Lord Wynfordreminded the House, that he had, early in the Session, given notice of his intention to bring in a Bill to check the habitual violation of the Lord's Day. He was then told, that there was such a Bill before the other House. Now, that that Bill had been disposed of, he did not immediately give notice of another, being desirous of consulting with the right Rev. Bench upon the subject. To the extent of preventing trading upon Sundays, and to that extent only, did he go along with the measure that had been introduced.

AFFAIRS OF OUDE.
Lord Ellen-borough, with reference to his Motion to the claim of Mr. Prendergast, as representative of two native bankers, on the King of Oude, inquired whether Ministers would state the grounds on which the mandamus obtained by the Board of Control had been abandoned; and whether the information which ultimately led to that result had been received before or after the mandamus was applied for?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the noble Baron must have anticipated what his answer to this interrogatory, first and last, must be. He was not prepared, and the President of the Board of Control was not ready, consistently with his duty and with

359
a due regard to the public service, to accede to the noble Baron's request. Nothing certainly could be worse than to lay before the House documents connected with a transaction which was at the present moment by no means finished, although certain resolutions, or a certain plan or course of proceeding, had been agreed upon by the East-India Company and the Board of Control—that was, his Majesty's Government. The matter was not concluded with respect to its general bearing, and still less with reference to its details. Therefore, to lay the information required before the House would be extremely wrong. With respect to the second question, it would appear, that it was intended to make some disparaging observations with regard to the conduct of the individual who was at the head of the Board of Control. In that case, he (the Lord Chancellor) would be prepared to meet any such charge. But he would put it to the good feeling of the noble Baron himself, whether it would be acting fairly towards that high and responsible officer, to bring the subject forward when the matter in question was in such a situation as rendered it impossible, in meeting any observations which the noble Baron might make, to deal in any other than general allusions. With respect to producing details and evidence, as he had already stated in answer to the first question, it was impossible that such a course could be taken. He should only add, that he and his noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, would be placed in a better situation if the subject were brought forward, than the President of the Board of Control, who, if any attack were made on his conduct, could not be present to defend himself.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the answer of the noble and learned Lord was not, he thought, quite so clear and distinct as the questions which he had thought it necessary to put. One of his questions was, whether the information on which new measures were adopted was received by the Board of Control before they applied for the mandamus, or subsequently to that proceeding. To that question no answer had been returned.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should reserve any observations which he might have to make on the subject till Monday, as he found that the noble Baron still persisted in his purpose, which evidently was
360
that of attacking an individual on account of his official conduct, after the noble Baron had been told, as he did tell him on his own official knowledge, that he was about to introduce his attack at a moment when the Government could not, consistently with their duty to the King, and with a proper regard for the public service, bring forward the documents that were necessary to elucidate the case.
Lord Ellenboroughhoped their Lordships would, in fairness, judge of his intentions from what he had uttered, and not from the interpretation which the noble and learned Lord chose to put upon his words. He repeated, that his second question had not been answered; and he believed, that it never would be answered.
Subject dropped.

ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS TO THE UNIVERSITIES.
The Earl of Winchilsea: My Lords, in pursuance of the notice which I gave last Thursday, I rise to present to your Lordships a petition, which I feel proud in having had the honour of having placed in my hands, signed by upwards of one hundred lay and clerical graduates of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, resident in the small district of country contained in the eastern part of the county of Kent; out of which number I find there are upwards of seventy who have obtained the degrees of Masters of Arts. My Lords, I ought also to state, that this petition was agreed upon without one single dissentient voice, and that I have every reason to believe, that if the petitioners had allowed it to remain for signatures for only a few days; that, with very few exceptions, it would have received the support of every, individual connected with those universities resident in that part of the county. My Lords, the prayer of this petition is, that your Lordships would withhold your assent to any act which will, in the slightest degree, interfere with the limitations under which degrees are at present conferred at those Universities. My Lords, I can assure your Lordships, that it was with no slight regret that I saw myself deprived of an opportunity, at an early period, of expressing my opinion on this important question; and also, as it has compelled me to intrude myself upon your notice upon the present occasion, that I was prevented attending in my place in this House on the evening when the noble Earl at the

361
head of his Majesty's government presented a petition signed by a certain number of the resident members of the University of Cambridge in favour of the repeal of these limitations, and also when the royal Duke, Chancellor of that University, to whom I beg to offer my humble meed of thanks for the powerful and eloquent appeal he made to your Lordships in defence of our Established Church and religion, presented a petition still more numerously signed, for their continuance; but, my Lords, in justice to those gentlemen who have intrusted me with their petition, to whose high character of respectability and great intellectual acquirement I can bear the strongest testimony—in justice to my own feelings, entertaining, as I do sentiments in perfect unison with those contained in the petition which I now hold in my hands, I cannot content myself with placing it upon your Lordships' table, without craving your indulgence for a very few moments, whilst I offer some brief observations on the subject which it embraces—a subject which I, from the very bottom of my heart, believe involves the best and dearest interests of this Christian country. My Lords, since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I have been called upon to take my share in legislating upon two of the most important measures which have been brought under the consideration of the Legislature of this country since the period of the Revolution—I allude to the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, and the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. My Lords, it is unnecessary for me to dwell, for it is too well known to your Lordships, and the great majority of my fellow-countrymen, on the warm and uncompromising opposition which I offered, both within and without the walls of this House, to the passing of those momentous measures; feeling, and most justly feeling, as every day's bitter experience has since taught me, and continues to teach me, that those concessions, so far from satisfying those to whose prayers they had been granted, would lead to still further aggressions; and that, by the surrender of those great bulwarks which had been so wisely and so justly erected for the protection and security of our Protestant Established Church, the few defences which were left, either for the maintenance of her government, or the propagation of those sound scriptural doctrines
362
which she inculcates, would soon be placed in the hands of those who are bent upon total ruin and destruction. Blind and infatuated, indeed, must that man be who can doubt the truth of this assertion. Let him look at the open and avowed declaration of hostility recently made by the leading members of certain Dissenting bodies in the kingdom against our Established Church and religion;—let him look to the repeated and undisguised declaration of hostility made by the organ of the Popish priesthood, before whom the government of this country, destitute of that great moral courage which ought to have graced and adorned it, and without which it never can, it never ought, to command the confidence and respect of the honourable and high-minded people of this nation, have so often quailed and quaked, and then let him put his hand to his heart and say, if he can, that this statement is false and unfounded. But, my Lords, deep as I thought the importance of these two most momentous measures—pregnant as I conceived they would prove of irreparable injuries to the best interests of this once Protestant country, they sink into perfect nothingness and insignificance when compared with the immeasurable interests embraced by this petition; nay, in the humble opinion of the individual who has now the honour to address you, they are no more to be compared than a drop of water to the ocean, or a spark of light to the countless stars in the firmament. My Lords, it is too true, that the passing of the first two measures effected the separation of Protestantism from our institutions; this last, if agreed to, will tear away Christianity from them. Pass this measure, and we cease to be a Christian country. Now, my Lords, in viewing the claims set forth by a certain body of the Dissenters of this kingdom, backed by Popery, who is at present in the rear, but who would soon, if they are conceded, appear in the first ranks, I will briefly and with humility direct your attention to the important point, worthy of your most serious and deliberate consideration. First, can the Dissenters be admitted to the privileges which they seek at your hands, without the total destruction of many of the most salutary and beneficial statutes which at present exist in both the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and which have hitherto marked and stamped their religious cha-

363
racter? Secondly, can they be conceded without the removal of all sound religious instruction from those venerable and long-cherished national institutions? Now, my Lords, I will not occupy your Lordships (feeling how anxious you are to proceed to the business which is to engage your attention this evening, though I am confident your time would not be misapplied in considering them), by bringing before you the several distinct religious statutes, which at present regulate the government of the different individual colleges connected with both those Universities. I will briefly, however, point to one most salutary statute which at present affects both the University of Oxford and Cambridge, and which must be repealed before these claims can be conceded, which has wisely provided, that every student on his admission shall be placed under the charge of some college tutor, whose important duty is, not only to promote his intellectual acquirements, but to watch over his moral and religious improvement. My Lords, I am not here to maintain, that this most important and sacred duty has been invariably and faithfully discharged by all those into whose hands it has been committed. My Lords, if I dwell upon the latitudinarian principles now afloat—if I look back upon the total apathy and indifference which have of late years characterised so great a body of our Legislatures, on questions deeply affecting the maintenance and support of that pure system of religion which has been established in this country. I feel that such a position cannot be maintained; but, in making this declaration, which I do with the deepest sorrow, I turn with heartfelt gratification to the brighter side of the picture which presents itself, when I contemplate the great and visible improvement which of late years has taken place at both those Universities in the furtherance of sound religious instruction. My Lords, at the present day (what was far from being the case when I was at the University of Cambridge), a certain study and knowledge of theology is absolutely necessary for the attainment of any degree or honorary distinction at either the University of Oxford or Cambridge. But my Lords, laying aside the question, whether these claims can be conceded without the destruction of all those statutes, which mark the religious character of those
364
Universities, I will briefly proceed to the second part, and consider whether the privileges sought for can be conceded to the Dissenters, without the removal of all sound, religious instruction from those long-cherished national establishments. My Lords, if you are prepared to give your assent to the removal of these restrictions, and to admit all denominations of Dissenters, without the slightest reference to the religious faith which they profess, whether Papists, Atheists, Deists, Unitarians, Freethinking Christians, and the different religious sects, too numerous for me to repeat, which I find, from a book I hold in my hand, amount to upwards of fifty in number, it is worse than mockery to affirm that any system of sound religious instruction can be pursued within their walls. My Lords, concede these claims, and you will have the education pursued in those Universities connected with no religion, or, if so, it will be the mere empty name of religion, for it will be nominal religion, without distinction between truth and error. A sound system of religious instruction, I will boldly affirm, cannot be maintained. I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whether if any important legal cause had been placed in his hands as an advocate, whether he would not have considered it as a mere waste of time and words to have endeavoured to have established it, without attempting to prove the weakness of the arguments advanced by his opponents. I would ask any noble Lord who has made mathematics his study and pursuit, how frequently he finds the best and most satisfactory course to pursue, in establishing a proposition in that most interesting study, is by showing the absurdity of the converse of it. I would ask one and all of the right reverend Prelates, how weak would be the attempt to establish truth, if error is not pointed out and confuted. Now, my Lords, if this latter course was to be pursued, after the admission of all religionists to those Universities, and truth is to be upheld by the exposure of error, I would implore your Lordships to consider what a religious spirit of controversy you would have called into existence, the fatal effects of which would be felt in every corner of the empire. On the other hand, if all sound religion is to be excluded, from a state of apathy and indifference, what would naturally arise

365
from such a course if it should be adopted—scepticism and infidelity would speedily reign triumphant in those hitherto soundly religious establishments. I implore your Lordships to consider well for whom you will be called upon to legislate; first, for the higher ranks and grades of society, who are to be the future legislators of this Christian country; secondly, for those who are hereafter to fill every sacred office, from the highest to the lowest in our venerated Church. My Lords, many and important are the duties which, from the elevated station in society in which it has pleased Providence to place us, we owe both to our fellow-countrymen and to our God: of the former, none can be compared in point of magnitude and importance to that which calls for a faithful watchfulness on our part, to promote their moral and religious welfare; of the latter, if we believe ourselves to be responsible beings, if we make the revealed Word of God our guide, there is none to be compared to that sacred duty which calls upon us to uphold the honour and glory of His name, and to promote the dissemination of that religion which he came down on earth to establish, for the temporal and everlasting happiness of our fallen race. Will any of your Lordships say that you feel it to be a matter of indifference in what faith or religion your child is educated? Carry this feeling one step higher, towards your fellow countrymen. This nation is one great family, and never lose sight that we hold the responsible situation of guardians and protectors of their moral and religious welfare. Religion, it is true, is a question between man and his Maker, but it is also a question between a nation and their God. Will your Lordships—no, the thing is impossible—proclaim in the face of Heaven, which I will boldly assert you will do if you remove these religious restrictions from our Universities, that you consider it a matter of total indifference in what religious principles the rising generation of our countrymen are educated, and what religion is connected with our institutions? My Lords, there is no individual a greater friend of sound civil and religions liberty, than the humble individual who has now the honour of addressing you, but I will not flinch from declaring the opinion I have long entertained, that liberty and toleration, carried to the extent which they have been of late years in this country, that the
366
former has merged into licentiousness—the latter into a direct promotion of scepticism and infidelity in the land in which we live. As a friend, therefore to sound liberty, civil and religious, I stand forward to uphold and maintain the Established Protestant Church and religion of this country, feeling, which I could establish, if I had not already trespassed too much upon your Lordships' time, that education without religion will prove, from the experience of past ages, a curse, not a blessing, of society; also that religion is the foundation of all sound liberty. Cast your eyes to the wretched scene which now presents itself at this moment in France, where liberalism and infidelity have reigned triumphant, and then you will find ample proof of this assertion—without one atom of those principles upon which society alone can exist, the miserable and worthless people of that nation can alone be governed by the two-edged sword of military despotism. I stand forward at this hour of danger to uphold Protestantism in this empire, regarding her, most justly regarding her, not only as the foundation of our long cherished national liberties, but the source from which have flowed, however faintly, those few streams of liberty which gladden the eye in any part of the civilised world. My Lords, it is weakness, nay, it is madness, to shut our eyes to the danger which threatens the best interests of the empire; by turning our backs upon it, it will hourly gain additional strength. The system of public education which has during the last twenty years been established, from the Infant Schools or the Mechanics' Institutions to the London University, based upon no religion, has filled our land with heathenism and infidelity. My Lords, we see arrayed against our Established Church and religion, the power of Popery, backed by Infidelity, Scepticism, Deism, and Socinianism; the three latter bodies embracing that body of restless, and falsely-styled Christians, to whom I have the recorded opinion of the immortal Burke, the champion of sound civil and religious liberty, no toleration could be granted either by this or any other well-regulated Government, because they would always be found arrayed against every established Government. Gloomy as the prospect may be before, us, fearful as the contest is in which we must soon be engaged, I feel perfect confidence as to

367
the termination of it. Standing in the breach which has been made by the throwing down of those bulwarks of our Church to which I have alluded—surrounded by every individual who sets the slightest value on the blessings of Christianity, whether member of our Establishment, or of the sect of Christian Dissenters, in this empire, who have repeatedly, and will at this trying hour (I will pledge myself for them, which pledge I am confident they will honestly redeem), stand boldly forward in her defence—led by the illustrious individual who at present sways the sceptre of these realms, and whom I will not insult by entertaining a supposition that, if any measure was proposed to him for his assent, which would either remove sound religious instruction from those long-cherished national establishments, or would give a royal sanction to a seminary purposely excluding all religious instruction, he would not with indignation reject it; but, above all, trusting in the sacredness of our cause, and in that Almighty Being who has frequently rescued this Protestant country, at the hour of imminent peril and danger, boldly will we encounter, triumphantly will we conquer, for if God be on our side, which assuredly he will be if we faithfully discharge our duty towards Him and our country—I repeat, boldly will we encounter, triumphantly will we conquer; for if God be on our side we need not fear what man can do unto us.
The petition was read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

REPEAL OF THE UNION—ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Lord Chancelloracquainted the House that he and their Lordships, together with the other House, had this day, pursuant to a resolution of their Lordships and the other House of Parliament, proceeded to wait upon his Majesty with the Address which they had agreed to upon the subject of the Union of the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland, and that his Majesty was graciously pleased to accept the same: to which he had been pleased to return the following answer:—
"It is with the greatest satisfaction that I have received this solemn and united expression of the determination of both Houses of Parliament to maintain inviolate the Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, which I entirely
368
agree with you in considering as essential to the preservation of the integrity and safety of the British empire.
"You may rely, therefore, upon my discharging with fidelity and fearlessness the sacred duty which I owe to my subjects, in exercising those powers which are invested in me for their protection against attempts which, if successful, must necessarily produce a separation of my dominions.
"In thus expressing my concurrence in the determination which you have so justly stated, I look back with satisfaction to those salutary laws which since the Union have been passed for the advantage of the interests of Ireland, and I shall at all times be most anxious to afford my best assistance in removing all just causes of complaint, and in sanctioning all well-considered measures of improvement."
Earl Grey moved, that the Address of their Lordships, together with his Majesty's gracious Answer thereto, should be printed in the usual way.
The Motion was agreed to.

LIVERPOOL FREEMEN.
The Earl of Radnormoved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Liverpool Freemen's Disfranchisement Bill. He would suggest, that the same system should be adopted in regard to this Bill which had been followed in the Warwick Borough Bill; namely, that evidence be heard at the Bar.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, that if witnesses were to be examined merely for the purpose of adducing reasons for the passing this Bill, they might as well have walked out of the House at once. He (Lord Eldon) had known the country long, and he could say, from his experience, that the subjects of this country had the greatest reliance on the decision of that House of Parliament; and by its conduct both in its legislative and judicial capacity it had frequently been the means of saving the Constitution, by the exercise of its privileges. If he were to express an opinion upon this Bill—and he should not do so at any great length—he should beg the attention of their Lordships to what this Bill, which they were now called on to read a second time, was. It was this, that in the year 1834 it was found out (for he supposed that it had not, and could not be found out before, or there would have been a Bill of the same kind

369
sooner)—it was found out that some freemen of Liverpool, previous to the passing of the Reform Bill, had been corrupt, and because those few freemen had been corrupt, they were called on to disfranchise the whole of the freemen of Liverpool, innocent as well as guilty. If the intention of the Bill was merely to disfranchise the freemen made since the Reform Bill, he could understand it; but here they were called on to disfranchise all—the innocent as well as the guilty; nay more, they were called on to go further than he believed Parliament had ever gone before, for the Bill before them proposed to enact that all future freemen should be disfranchised. That such a Bill had ever before been submitted to Parliament he did not believe. He was an old man, and it might perhaps be said, was too fond of the institutions of his country, but he recollected that Lord Mansfield, when Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, said that all new laws on the subject of bribery were useless, because the common law was sufficient to overtake those guilty of that offence. But upon that Charles James Fox said, that he could not make up his mind to disfranchise those guilty of bribery unless an Act was passed to point out to the people, that for bribery they should be liable to the punishment of disfranchisement in addition to what they were liable to by the common law. He (Lord Eldon) in the same manner could not make up his mind to punish all parties for the offence of a few. He could not consent to confound the innocent with the guilty. If this Bill were to pass into a law, their Lordships might depend upon it that it would be the forerunner of a change in the Constitution of the country. He would not further object to the measure, but this he would say, that whatever evidence was brought forward, it would not induce him to punish the innocent for the offences of the guilty.
Lord Wharncliffebegged to suggest to their Lordships that it would be better, before hearing evidence in support of the Bill at the Bar of the House, that the persons who promoted the Bill should be called on to make out their case—and should lay before the House the general grounds on which they asked their Lordships to pass the Bill. That appeared to him (Lord Wharncliffe) to be the proper course of proceeding. At the same time
370
he admitted, that the precedents were in favour of the course of proceeding proposed by the noble Earl. He, therefore, felt some difficulty on the subject, and instead of directly negativing the Motion, he would content himself with moving that the evidence to be adduced should be confined to a certain period of time. The precedents of Cricklade, Aylesbury, Grampound, and East Retford, were all in favour of such a course of proceeding. The first went to introduce the voters from the adjoining Rape of Bramber. The argument in the case of Grampound was strongly insisted on, that it behoved the Legislature to remove, by total disfranchisement, that borough, as a blot on the Constitution, because it belonged to a county (Cornwall) already sharing in too great a degree the representation. He adverted to these cases, partly to show their Lordships that the present was a new case, but in fact there was no precedent for disfranchising men yet unborn as was proposed by the Liverpool Bill. He would next proceed to show their Lordships that, there never was a Bill brought before them by which such injustice was done as by that now before them. In 1830 an election took place at Liverpool, owing to the lamented death of Mr. Huskisson, and he was free to own that it had been since proved that corruption to a great extent then took place among the freemen. He did not stand up in their favour for their conduct on that occasion, whatever might be said of him as an enemy to Reform. He had never defended corruption, and he defied any man to point out an instance in his political life in which he had done so. On that occasion corruption was proved, and if the freemen had then been punished, their punishment would have been just and proper, and he did not mean to defend them. But that was previous to the Reform Bill, by which precisely the same remedy was applied to the corruption of Liverpool which was applied to other boroughs. They ought, therefore, not to take into consideration any corruption which existed previous to the Reform of the House of Commons. After the election of 1830 a petition was presented, and a Committee appointed under the Grenville Act. The Committee came to the Resolution that bribery took place at the election. But subsequently to that election, and previously to the passing of the Reform Bill, two other

371
elections took place, both in the year 1831; and it was a singular fact, that the very parties who were promoting this Bill, in their speeches at the time publicly bore testimony to the propriety with which those two elections had been conducted. At the next election there were four candidates; two Whigs; one was a Tory, and the other was a moderate politician. One of the liberal candidates and the moderate man were returned. Immediately after that election, a Committee was formed in Liverpool, avowedly for the purpose of collecting evidence, and making every inquiry into the proceedings. That Committee was composed of the parties who were promoting this Bill; and notwithstanding they used great exertions for a considerable time—notwithstanding the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, that gross bribery and corruption had prevailed at the election of 1830—when Parliament met they were unable to present an election petition on the subject. A petition, then, was subsequently presented to the House of Commons, signed by 3,000 persons, complaining that bribery existed at that election, and calling upon the House to inquire into it. The House of Commons entertained this petition. A petition was also presented, signed by 7,500 electors denying the allegation, and requiring to be heard on their own behalf. On this the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee—not a Committee under the Grenville Act—not a Committee, the members of which are sworn, and obliged to attend—but a Committee not armed with powers to examine witnesses, and on oath. That Committee came to the conclusion—"That cases of bribery and corruption had been proved at the late election for Liverpool, but that such cases did not appear to have been with the authority of the candidates, or to have been pursued systematically or extensively." That was the Resolution of the Committee after the parties had had an opportunity of raking up every fact that could possibly tend to forward their views. That Resolution, however, was carried in the Committee by a majority of one voice only. After the Reform Bill had been passed—after, in point of fact, the Legislature had applied the remedy usually administered in cases of corruption—after the enfranchisement of the 10 l. householders, whereby the constituency was
372
increased from 4,000 to 12,000—after all this, one would have thought that this Report of the Committee would have put an end to the subject; and it was extremely hard, after the accusing parties had had one opportunity of bringing their case fully before the House of Commons, subsequent proceedings should be adopted with the view of extending the inquiry, and of raking up old grievances which the Reform Bill was supposed to have remedied. Upon a debate which took place after in the House of Commons, it was admitted by the Paymaster of the Forces and the Solicitor-General, that this Resolution was not sufficient to ground a Bill of Pains and Penalties upon, and another Committee was therefore appointed to rake out further evidence. That Committee came to certain Resolutions upon which the Bill at present before their Lordships was founded, and carried through the other branch of the Legislature. He had endeavoured to distinguish the periods of time, and to point out to their Lordships what would be applicable to the period prior to the passing of the Reform Act. He endeavoured to show what only could be applicable to the period that had elapsed since. He fully admitted the corruption of the voters of Liverpool previous to the Reform Bill. But what happened subsequent to that Bill? The constituency had been changed. The first Reform Bill did not go the length of disfranchising freemen for treating. The second Reform Bill was kept within still narrower bounds, and not only confirmed the present freemen in their rights, but those also who should hereafter become entitled to their freedom, either by birth or servitude. It would be a most gross injustice to turn round now upon these persons, and say, "We will punish you for acts done before the Reform Bill passed." To justify this Bill proof of corruption subsequent to the Reform Act should be produced. The second Committee sat many days, and went as far back as 1819 for evidence of bribery. In their Report two cases were particularly alluded to of persons who subscribed 400 l. each for the election of General Gascoyne, and who, id consideration of the money thus advanced were to get tide-waiters' places. Non constat whether these very two individuals, after this Bill passed, would not still have a right to vote as 10 l. householders. The Committee, not content with referring to

373
the bribery which took place at elections for Members of Parliament, referred also to bribery in the election of a Chief Magistrate. The Committee declared, that the suspension of the Writ, and the threat of disfranchisement in consequence of what occurred in 1830, had a good effect upon the subsequent elections. Were they now, in the face of such a declaration from the Committee, to turn round and say, that notwithstanding the good effect produced by this threat, ale freemen were to be disfranchised? Suppose the law threatened him with punishment, and in consequence of the threat he amended his conduct, would it be fair to turn round and say, "You shall be punished, though you have improved in your conduct?" The Committee recommended a measure to secure more purity, not only in the election of Members to serve in Parliament, but also in the election of a Chief Magistrate. This Bill, however, made no reference at all to the office of Chief Magistrate. The Committee recommended, also, that the superior class who were guilty of corrupting others ought to be punished. In place of doing this, the present Bill, while it would punish the poor freemen, would leave the rich in possession of their franchise as 10 l. householders. In place of acting in this way, the rich who corrupted others ought to be disfranchised nominatim. There was a great number of the freemen against whom no charge was ever insinuated of having received bribes in 1830. Including those against whom no charge of bribery was brought, freemen's sons, and persons whose names were upon the register, having inchoate rights, this Bill would deprive of their rights not less than 4,541 persons, while it left to several guilty persons the privilege of still voting as 10 l. householders. Whatever might have been his opinion of the Reform Bill, and, though all his anticipations of its effects were more than realised, still as it was now the law, it ought to stand upon its own bases, and not be made an instrument of punishment in any election cases, except such as occurred subsequently to passing that Act. Had anything taken place since 1830 to warrant the disfranchisement of the freemen of Liverpool? Why, there were 12,000 voters, and, at the subsequent election, the whole amount of bribery proved was 48 l. 9s. 9d., of which 27 l. 3s. was said to be distributed in
374
bribes. But what was the evidence? One witness said, he saw a bribe given, but did not know the name either of the giver or the receiver. Another said, he saw a ribbon given to one, and a 5l. note in a voter's hand, but did not know who gave it to him. Another species of bribery was alluded to which, perhaps, could not be much blamed. It was stated, that several manufacturers gave half a day's wages to their men. There was only a small sum of 3l. 10 s. not satisfactorily accounted for. He did not refuse to hear evidence if the noble Earl (the Earl of Radnor) thought it would make his case better, but he thought the examination should be confined to what took place subsequently to the passing of the Reform Bill. Everything that occurred before should be forgotten and forgiven. If the freemen of Liverpool should hereafter return to their former courses let them then be punished. The franchise of no place would be safe if so small an amount of corruption as that just mentioned was to be a sufficient ground for disfranchisement. He would undertake, at this rate, with 200 l. to disfranchise any place. The petitioners now came before their Lordships to amend their case at the expense of the country, knowing that it was not sufficiently strong. If the country paid their expenses, he should certainly propose that the expenses of those on the other side should be defrayed in the same way. Would it be fair to call the parties again before their Lordships, and put them a second time to the trouble of an examination on matters which occurred in 1830? In this, as in other cases, attempts would be made to persuade the country, that the House of Lords was desirous to crush all inquiry into matters of corruption at elections. This he must deny. The specific business of the House of Lords was to guard the rights of individuals. They would not—and it was high time to declare, that they would not—take this, or any other case, upon the mere showing of the House of Commons; that no names which might be applied to them, no insinuations that might be thrown out, should turn them from their duty; that they would neither give up their own rights, nor sacrifice those of others. The object of the Motion with which he should conclude was, that their Lordships would confine their inquiry into the alleged corruption of the freemen of Liverpool, to

375
the period that had elapsed subsequently to the passing of the Reform Bill. That was a compact under which it was agreed to contine certain rights; and he maintained that their Lordships had no right to take those rights away, unless they were firmly convinced, that they had been subsequently abused. He would therefore conclude by moving as an Amendment to the Motion before the House, "That the right of voting for Members Of Parliament for the borough of Liverpool, having under the provisions of the Act of 2nd William 4th, cap. 45, intituled 'An Act to amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales,' been very greatly altered and extended to a very large number of persons, in addition to those who, before the passing of that Act, had or might acquire the exclusive right of voting for such Members, Counsel be directed to confine their examination of witnesses, to acts of bribery and corruption at any election that has taken place subsequently to the passing of that Act."
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the noble Lord, by this Amendment, took him rather by surprise. He was a little surprised at it, because the course he proposed was the same as that followed in all the five cases to which the noble Lord referred. The noble Lord told them last week, that it was his intention to oppose the second reading, and endeavour to throw out this Bill altogether; and the noble Lord left them up to the present time with this impression. The noble Lord referred with expressions of disapprobation to the proceedings of the House of Commons with reference to this Bill. With these proceedings, whether blamable or not, he had nothing to do. He for one could not agree to the wish of the noble Lord to limit the inquiry to the election since the Reform Bill. The noble Lord had said, that he did not think there had been much bribery at the late elections; but was it not well known that at the election of 1832, one of the candidates relinquished the contest on the very first day because he would not consent to give money to the voters? It was in evidence, that the electors asked for beer and money, and refused to vote without them. He would, however, oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, mainly on the ground, that however bad the conduct of the electors might have been at the last election, the present Bill was not founded on the corruption
376
then practised, but on the Report of the Election Committee, which declared, that "a gross system of corruption had prevailed in the borough of Liverpool for a series of years back." It was rather inconsistent in the noble Lords opposite to stand up now for the purity of Liverpool when that very borough was the one chiefly quoted as having a large population, and as notorious for its corruption, in their speeches against the Reform Bill. The noble Lord said, it would be hard to go back to cases of corruption that occurred before the passing of the Reform Bill; but it should be recollected that the Bill to disfranchise the borough of Liverpool had been brought in long before the Reform Bill passed into a law. That Bill was brought in before the dissolution, and in fact was going on through the House at the same time with the Reform Bill; and it was only withdrawn at that time to be again brought in after the re-assemblage of Parliament on the general election. He should, for these reasons, most strenuously object to the Motion of the noble Lord. The extended investigation had been opposed upon the ground of the expense to which it must subject those who opposed the Bill; but he did not think that there could be any great doubt, that the Corporation of Liverpool, which possessed an income of 198,000 l. a-year, was well able to bear any expense that the inquiry might lead to. If, upon a strict investigation of the whole case, the Bill did not appear to be a fair one, he hoped the House would reject it, but, if otherwise, the Bill, as an act of justice, should be passed.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he was desirous of saying a few words on this occasion. He would first observe, that if the inquiry were to be confined to the last election, or the election before that, it would be placing the House in a very difficult situation. He for one should object to disfranchise any single voter who was not clearly and distinctly proved to have been guilty of corruption in 1830, namely, three years before the operation of the Reform Bill; but he would disfranchise, not only at Liverpool, but all over the country, everyman who had in any manner participated in corrupt practices at the elections subsequent to that period. He would hold those men up to public exposure and reprobation, and more particularly those amongst them who were the

377
persons who gave the bribes. There might be some excuse for the poor distressed man, the wants of whose family might drive him to the necessity of selling his vote; but what excuse could be offered for the gentleman, to whom the poor man was accustomed to look up to as an example which he was to follow in all moral considerations? What excuse, he asked, could there be for this rich man, who was guilty of the base act of corrupting his poorer, but, morally speaking, his more honest neighbour? He would therefore appeal to his noble friend, if it would not be better to name in the Bill every man who was proved to be, by his corrupt practices, undeserving of the elective franchise.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that he entirely concurred in every word that had fallen from the noble Duke opposite. He should never be found to say one word to protect corruption. Let a case be made out in which corrupt practices were proved to have taken place, and he should be one of the first to support any measure for the disfranchisement of that place, or at least to so alter the nature of its constituency, that it should no longer have the power of being corrupt. Under these considerations, it would be quite impossible for him to vote for the motion of his noble friend, and it was with great pain that he felt himself compelled to differ from his noble friend on any occasion. The House of Commons had sent a Bill up to their Lordships, declaring, that gross and notorious corruption was proved to have taken place in the borough of Liverpool, at the election of Members to represent that borough in Parliament. Would their Lordships then say, that they would not go into the inquiry, or that they would, in the slightest degree, cripple that inquiry? He, for one, would say, let the witnesses come to their Lordships bar, and then the House would see what weight was due to their evidence. Much had been said, as to limiting the inquiry to the period since the passing of the Reform Bill; but surely the Reform Bill was never considered to be a Statute of Limitations against corruption. So far from having any hesitation as to the adoption of the present Bill, if the corruption should be proved at the bar, he would most gladly concur in passing a still more effectual measure. He would not only deprive of his franchise, but he would
378
brand with public scorn, any man who was proved to have been corrupted, and he would more especially deal out a full measure of punishment to those who had corrupted others. He would stick their names upon a board, to point them out as persons to be avoided by their honest neighbours. That House, it was known to their Lordships, could not act upon evidence taken before the House of Commons. The chief object in procuring the evidence from the other House of Parliament, was, to compare it closely, and see if the different witnesses agreed in their stories. He could not believe that the corruption that was stated to have prevailed at Liverpool, stopped short with the freemen alone. It was his opinion, that the household voters were equally tainted, and he thought it only just, that one measure of punishment should be dealt out to the corrupt of all classes. He would, therefore, propose, that they should go on to disqualify all household voters, as well as freemen, who should be proved to have in any way participated in the alleged bribery and other corrupt practices. He would take away from those men all future right to vote, because, in the language which it was proved they themselves were accustomed to use, "they considered a vote of no other value than what it would sell for." He disapproved of the principle of establishing one general rule of voting all over the kingdom as extremely unjust. A French minister had said, on the extension of the elective franchise, at the time of the Reform Bill, that he could not see the use of giving to the English a franchise merely to sell it. On the best consideration that he could give to the Bill before their Lordships, he had come to the determination of voting for it, if its principle should be established by evidence, but, at all events, he should be no party to stopping it in its course.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that, on the same grounds that had been so ably stated, by his noble and learned friend who had just spoken, he should give his support to the noble earl opposite; but at the same time he could not entirely approve of the Bill before their Lordships as it at present stood. His most anxious wish was, to do justice to all parties, and he should give his decided vote for the disfranchisement of every man, household voters as well as freemen, who should be proved to have forfeited, by their corrupt

379
practices, the trust that had been confided to them. He would lend his best aid to stigmatize and hold up to public scorn and reprobation every man who had been concerned in the system of bribery that had been stated to have prevailed.
The Marquess of Salisburywas desirous that the House should follow the precedents that had been laid down on former occasions. The practice hitherto had been to confine the evidence, in the first instance, to an inquiry into what had occurred at the last election. This was deemed necessary before any step was taken towards disfranchisement. The usual practice, in all former precedents, was, not to disfranchise particular individuals, but only to proceed upon such general corruption as might be proved to exist and render it proper that the franchise should be extended as in the case of East Retford. When it was proposed to disfranchise a large and a particular class of voters, he thought it only fair that it should be proved that they had continued in the exercise of corruption after the passing of the Reform Bill. He should, therefore, suggest to his noble friend to withdraw his Motion, and that counsel be instructed to direct their attention, in the first instance, to any acts of bribery or other corrupt practices that might have prevailed at the last election for the borough of Liverpool.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble Marquess had anticipated most of the observations which he had intended to offer to their Lordships. He felt anxious, however, to say a few words upon this subject, from an ancient connexion which he had once sought with this very borough of Liverpool; for he saw, that among the many misdeeds of that borough, there was an allusion made to the misdeeds of the election of 1812, when he was a candidate. Turning away from that topic, for the present, he would proceed to call their attention to what had fallen from the noble Marquess who had just preceded him. He saw the difficulty of going into the proceedings of all the elections at Liverpool, for the Reform Bill having passed within the last three years, and having been devised, as a remedy for the mal-practices then existing, he was bound, as a friend to that measure, to consider whether it was not fitting to try its efficacy by seeing what it had accomplished. There was also great difficulty in acceding to
380
the proposition of the noble Baron, and confining the inquiry to what occurred at the last election. It was a line of conduct obnoxious to misrepresentation, and which certainly would be misrepresented. It would be represented, and not without show of justice, that by such a proceeding their Lordships were endeavouring to shut out the light, and to withhold the truth from the public. Having adverted to the proceedings at former elections at Liverpool, he felt, that he should neither perform his duty to that House, nor to his friends at Liverpool, if he did not express the deep feeling of disgust which had been excited in his mind by reading, in the evidence, the history of the transactions at the former election. He had not read more disgusting evidence than that which was given respecting the election of 1830, when two shops were opened, with a slit in their walls, to which persons were brought by individuals who ought to have known better, and through which 10 l., 30 l., 40 l. were paid for votes which ought to have been given honestly and conscientiously; and, on the last day, 60 l., 80 l.—ay, and even as much as 120 l. It was a spectacle mixed up with every disgusting feature which the mind could contemplate. He had heard, that in the election of 1812, similar things had happened. He did not believe it at the time, but he did believe it now. It was only justice to his opponent at that election, the late Mr. Canning, to say, that that right hon. Gentleman knew no more of that bribery than he did. Indeed, Mr. Canning had told him so in private conversation. They had neither of them paid one silver penny in that way; for, as was well known, the election was conducted on both sides without expense to the candidates. They had heard, indeed, that a great deal of "beer" was given away by their respective friends. They did not then know what "beer" meant. There were tickets for beer. These tickets were currency. They said, "Deliver a cask, or half a cask of beer to the bearer." But the beer was never delivered, notwithstanding. The tickets were changed for money, and thus there was a currency, under the name of treating, to enable the parties to see what they could do in the way of bribery. He had hoped, that the Reform Bill had put an end to all this, by introducing a more extensive constituency. If the remedy devised by the Reform Act was effectual, let the

381
electors of Liverpool get off for what they had done before; but if the Reform Act still enabled the old offenders to offend again, let us go into the inquiry, and then if their guilt be proved, let those old offenders be dealt with according to law.
Lord Wharncliffewished their Lordships to sift to the bottom the proceedings at the election since the Reform Bill. Then, if that inquiry did not turn out for the advantage of the borough, let their Lordships inquire further. He had no objection to let his Motion be so modified by the introduction of the words "in the first instance," as to let the occurrences of the last election form a preliminary step to future inquiries.
The Marquess of Lansdownehad no objection to offer to that modification. He hoped that whatever might be the result of the present inquiry, as relating to the last election, at all events those 500 individuals who had been convicted of bribery and corruption would receive salutary punishment in order to secure in future the freedom of election at Liverpool.
The Earl of Durhamthought the course now proposed was contrary to all precedent. He moved on the East Retford case to confine the inquiry to the last election, but he was opposed by the noble Lords who now recommended a different course, and it was decided against him on the score of precedent. The counsel were instructed to open their case as was best for them. The Amendment for introducing the words "in the first instance" was agreed to, and counsel were called in. Further proceedings postponed. It was arranged, that whenever the House should find it convenient to proceed with the case, four or five days' previous notice should be given to counsel, in order that they might be prepared with the witnesses.