Sitting of 12 March 1834

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir MICHAEL SHAW STEWART, from Paisley, for the Abolition of Church Patronage there.—By Sir ROBERT PEEL, from Bridgewater, in support of the Established Church.—By Mr. LITTLETON, from the Fishermen of Bantry, for Relief.—By Colonel ANSON and Mr. LITTLETON, from two Places,—for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, from Hertford, against the Bill for Disfranchising that Borough, and from Chepstow, for Protection to the Established Church.—By Sir FRANCIS VINCENT and Mr. KEMEYS TYNTE, from two Places,—for Amending the Libel Law.—By Colonel SEALE, from Brixham, for the Repeal of the Reciprocity Duties Act; and from Dartmouth, for Protection to the Established Church.—By Mr. EWART, from Birkenhead, for a Vestry-room detached from the Church.—By Mr. W. WHITMORE, from Sedgeley, for the Repeal of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Rye, for Mitigating the Penalty imposed upon L. E. Cohen; and for the Amendment of the Libel Law; and from West Auckland, for Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments.—By Mr. WARD, from the Parish of Marylebone, against the Board of Sewers.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Galway, for the Repeal of the Apothecaries Act; from several Places, for the Abolition of Tithes; and for the Repeal of the Union.—By Lord MORPETH, Sir W. CHAYTOR, Colonel SEALE, Colonel WILLIAMS, and Messrs. C. BERKELEY, RYDER, H. HANDLEY, CALVERT, P. THOMSON, G. W. WOOD, GASKELL, L. WATKINS, BAINES, BROTHERTON, WILKS, BRODIE, W. WHITMORE, PARROTT, and EWART, from a Number of Places,—for Relief to the Dissenters.—By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from several Places, for the Abolition of Lay Patronage in Scotland.—By Lord MORPETH, from several Places, for Inquiry into the present State of the Medical Profession.—By Mr. RIDER, from three Places, for a Commutation of Tithes.—By Mr. COLQUHOUN, from Dumbarton, in favour of last year's Sabbath Observance Bill; and from one Parish, for a Revision of the Law relating to Parochial Schools in Scotland.—By Messrs. METHUEN and TALBOT, from several Places,—for an Alteration in the System of Poor Laws.—By Messrs. WHITMORE and C. BERKELEY, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

DISTRESS—IRELAND.
Mr. O'Connellpresented Petitions from the parish of St. Mary's, New Ross; from the parish of Longwood, county Meath; the parish of Tullalish, county Down; the parish of Ballyhogue, county Wexford;—for the Repeal of the Union. With regard to those petitions, he (Mr. O'Connell) would just mention to the House the circumstance of the women of these different places making an application to affix their signatures to the petitions. He mentioned this, to show the intense anxiety that predominated in the breast of the Irish people for the Repeal of the Union—an anxiety which would prevail until the object of it be attained.
Mr. Poulett Scropesaid, he had received a letter from Ireland, detailing scenes of misery which were sufficient to account for the feeling which the people had in favour of a Repeal of the Union, since that, they were told, would give them relief. The letter was from Dr. Locke, an officer of the Board of Health in Dublin. He stated, among other scenes he had recently witnessed, that in one house he found, in a garret, seven old and helpless females, without fire, food, or raiment, with the exception of a few rags, which they wore both night and day, which were wet, and remained so from the want of fire to dry them by. Dr. Locke added, that he had seen pigs in a sty better lodged. In an opposite room, he found nine human beings, younger than the first, with the same kind of covering. One of the women had a child hanging at her breast, crying for the nourishment she could not give, because she herself had been without food. But, he had seen still deeper misery than this; for he had seen, men, women, boys, and girls, lying down and rising together in one common room. Children of both sexes, from six to twelve years of age, were familiar with vice of every description, having no employment, and no one to take care of their morals. In one house in Felix-street, near Smithfield, he found nineteen females in one room, who formerly were employed as glovers; but who now, when they rose in the morning, had not one penny between them to buy food. Such being the state of things described by Dr. Locke, was it to be wondered, that the people called out for anything which they were told would give them relief? Could they be living in a Christian and civilized country, and
82
allow such a state of things to go on without a remedy?
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the gentleman who had written the letter quoted by the hon. member for Stroud, was worthy of every credit. He had not at all exaggerated the deplorable condition of many in the city of Dublin. Another officer of the Board of Health (Surgeon White) had published a pamphlet, detailing what he had seen, from which it appeared, that in one parish, containing 8,000 inhabitants, there was only one blanket between every thirty-five persons. Such a state of destitution, was frightful, and that man, who did not feel for it, could not have a human heart beat in his breast. The only question was, the mode of relieving it. Formerly, there was a million of Irish money spent in Dublin, which was not the case now. One hundred noblemen had their residences there, as also two hundred country gentlemen. If they were still there, Dr. Locke would not have to write letters complaining of the state of the people, to gentlemen in England. There was not a city in the world of its size where so much charity existed. The hospitals and other benevolent establishments were most numerous, and were all of them supported without the aid of Government. He thought, that the only effective method that could be devised for the relief of the distressed people of Dublin, would be to allow the Irish to manage their own affairs; to oblige those who had money to spend it at home; and to give some compulsory power, such as formerly existed in this country, by which absentees could not only be called home, but that persons having estates in Ireland, should not be allowed to have them elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House, thought a Poor-law the remedy for the distress to which he had alluded, but, in his opinion, a Poor-law would be an addition to the already existing grievances. He could never assent to the assertion, that, one man had a right to be relieved by the property of another being forcibly taken from him, and that was involved in the principle of Poor-laws. He did not say one word with respect to the moral obligation—his objection lay to the legal part of the question. There was no doubt that distress existed in Ireland, the difficulty was to find a remedy. The solution of that doubt would, he was sure, enlist all the feelings of that House.
Mr. Lambertsaid, that there was no doubt that distress, to a melancholy extent, existed in Ireland, but he did not see how that distress would be relieved by the Repeal of the Union. Distress had existed previous to the Union, and it was matter of history, that measures of the greatest injustice to the poor had been passed by the Irish Parliament. He admitted, that absenteeism was an evil; but did it decrease the evil of absenteeism, by rendering the country uninhabitable, and driving out of it every man who did not belong to a particular faction? He knew that many gentlemen had been driven out of the country by the state of things which existed there—three were gentlemen who gave large employment to the people. Employment was all that was wanted to relieve the distress of the people; and he thought it would tend to more good, to direct the public attention to the demanding measures of practical relief, than to delude them into the pursuit of those which were impracticable. Governed as Ireland had been for centuries, she had at last a right to expect justice, and that justice would be most effectually rendered by taking measures for the relief of the people, by giving them employment and support.
Mr. Ruthvenwas sorry, that, however Irish Members might disagree on other subjects, they were quite unanimous as to the existence of distress. It was too bad, after Ireland for thirty-three years had been suffering the effects of the Union, to attribute her present state to the bad Acts passed by the Irish Parliament. Ireland was in a state which required a variance from the strict principles of free trade. Her manufactures must be protected, for a time at least, and some measures should be taken to check absenteeism. He denied that any man was unsafe in Ireland, unless he made himself exceedingly obnoxious by his opposition to the interests of the people.
Petition to lie on the Table.

HERTFORD BOROUGH DISFRANCHISEMENT.
Mr. Bernal Mr. Bernal moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill. As this measure had been already very fully discussed, he should not trouble the House at any length. That Report of, and evidence taken by the first Committee was referred to a Special Committee, and the recommendation of that
84
Committee had led to the present Bill. The object of the Bill was to carry the recommendation of the Committee into effect. The electors were divided into three classes—the old inhabitant householders, who resided within the limits of the old borough, and who were subject to no qualification but the payment of rates and taxes; 2ndly, the freemen; 3rdly, the new 10 l. constituency. The object of the Bill was to disfranchise the first class, as being the most determined supporters of the bribery; leaving the two other classes, who were scarcely tainted with corruption, untouched. The whole number who polled were about 671, and the total number of voters about 702. Of these, 314 were inhabitant householders of the first class; 264 were 10 l. householders; and 124 freemen. It appeared also, from much of the evidence on the first Election Committee, that the extent of bribery and corruption depended materially on the limits. A great deal also came out before the Committee as to the distribution of tea, flour, coals, and other things, among the freemen of both kinds; this distribution not being in the accustomed manner, as charity, but evidently from a corrupt motive. It was proved, that a baker in the town had distributed flour amongst the voters in this manner, and also that the other articles mentioned were freely distributed amongst the voters, not merely the old freeholders, but also the 10 l. householders. These were the facts as they appeared on the face of this Report. The Committee, in the discharge of their duty, then employed a gentleman of known ability and integrity to go to Hertford. Captain Brydone went to Hertford, in order to trace out a correct map of the place, and the parishes surrounding it. The result of Captain Brydone's investigation was the map which had been printed. The parishes which were within the boundary were all within a certain distance of the town of Hertford. Not one of these parishes was more than five miles distant from the town. Many of these places were not more than three miles from the town. The Committee were guided entirely by the survey which had been made. They threw entirely out of their consideration whether any particular portion included within this boundary was occupied by wealthy individuals, or by persons professing one political opinion or another. Their only object

85
evidently was, to purify the corrupt representation of Hertford; and the effect of the proposed alteration would be to add a very considerable number of voters to Hertford. In the seven parishes the number of 10 l. freeholders was 688, of whom 115 possessed the right of voting at the county elections. The Committee, in their Report, remarked, that a great number of these freeholders might either prefer the right of voting in the town or many of them possessed freeholds in other parts of the county, out of which they would have the right of voting at the county elections. It did not follow, because these 115 possessed the right in the county, that they would therefore prefer to exercise that right. The Committee, it must be admitted, had a difficult task to perform; and that task they had performed to the best of their ability. When the Bill went into Committee, any suggestion calculated to improve it would no doubt be most willingly received. He thought it was too late for any Gentleman to get up and say, that no notice ought to be taken of these corrupt practices, and that they ought not to apply some remedy for those evils, the consequences of which would be even more dangerous than the present effects, which were of the most grievous description. Allusion having been made to a trial in the Court of King's Bench of a person named Russell Davies, a voter at the last election for Hertford, and a witness before the Election Committee, who had been charged and convicted of perjury, he (Mr. Bernal) thought it proper to state, that Davis's evidence was not received by the Election Committee, but was completely discarded. Upon the very first opening of that man's evidence, he believed there was no Gentleman composing the Committee who had thought it entitled to belief. He stated this to remove any unpleasant impressions which might be hostile to the merits of the case, and in order to do justice to a noble Lord who might be thought to be affected by the evidence of Davis. Some Members of the Committee were for disfranchising the borough of Hertford altogether; others were for transposing the representation to the county; but he was in favour of neither of these plans. He had, for a long time, thought—and what he every day saw only the more firmly convinced him of the fact—that it was desirable for them to take care to keep up the balance
86
of the town against the county representation. He would not weary the House by going through the details with which he troubled them on a former occasion; for, as the House then agreed that corruption did exist at Hertford, they had only now to apply as good a remedy as they could. He offered them one; but if any one thought it could be improved, the Committee was the place for improving it. He begged to move, that the Bill be read a second time.
Lord Granville Somerset, although he agreed with the hon. member for Rochester, that it was not necessary to trouble the House by going through the whole of the evidence given in this case, he could not agree with him, because the House had affirmed that Hertford was in a corrupt state, that, therefore, this Bill ought to be read a second time. The Government had not disfranchised the town of Newry, when cases were proved against it as strong, if not stronger, than any of those insinuated against the borough of Hertford; on the contrary, it had only instituted a prosecution against one individual. Why, therefore, should that be done in the one case which was not done in the other? Was it not injustice and partiality? Indeed, he did not see why the individuals about to be disfranchised should not feel a degree of indignation when they saw one measure of justice doled out to them, and another to others. There was a great distinction between treating and bribery, and he did conceive it too hard, that between two and three hundred individuals should be disfranchised on such evidence as had been laid before the Committee. He, therefore, implored the House to pause and consider well the subject, before it proceeded to act upon the Report of that Committee, and disfranchise the borough of Hertford. Some case had been adduced where a shilling was given in charity, but no case of bribery could be substantiated. He thought it would be most unjust to inflict an ex post facto punishment on those men who could have had no participation in the crime. He certainly did not mean to say, that persons who were guilty of bribery should not be punished, but the innocent should not suffer for the guilty. The noble Lord adverted, at some length, to the evidence of one of the witnesses, for the purpose of showing, that coals and flour, which had been given to some poor people of the town,

87
at the instance of two noble candidates, went no further than this, namely, to establish the fact, that the noble Lords were anxious to be considered in the light of popular candidates. He would beg to ask the hon. member for Hertfordshire, whether he had not given those tickets himself? And whether he had not done so without the least intention of bribing or of doing anything wrong? He was sure that no man in the House would be further from doing anything which he could believe to be illegal and corrupt. The only persons concerned in the treating were the lowest class of voters—the scot-and-lot householders. The hon. member for Rochester ought to consider in what state he would leave the constituents after the disfranchisement of those 524 electors. The whole number of electors appeared, by the Report of the Special Committee, to be 702, and, of those, 670 voted at the last election. The electors consisted, as the hon. member for Rochester had said, of three classes—the inhabitant householders, the freemen, and the ten-pound householders. There were 400 of one class, who were declared perfectly free from suspicion or taint, as also 124 of another class; making in all 524 electors living completely in the midst of this alleged system of bribery and corruption, and yet wholly free, according to the terms of the Report, from taint or suspicion. It was proposed to give to Hertford 600 additional voters—the number free from taint there was 524 only; and the former would overwhelm the latter by majority of numbers. Knowing the notorious antipathy of Hertford to Ware, why should they annex them, and so increase the squabbles between them? It might be said, it would be impossible to have a proper constituency, after cutting off the freemen; but it was not the fact, for twenty-five boroughs of England had each a smaller constituency than Hertford would have without the freemen. He really could not account for their anxiety to swamp the constituency of Hertford by throwing in Ware, especially when he recollected, that even if the electoral franchise were taken away from the freemen, there would still be a respectable class of ten pound voters (not less than 430), and that there were, at the present time, twenty-five or twenty-six boroughs with a less amount of constituency. Before he sat down, he must beg to ask them whether, by countenancing, the five Bills
88
which had been brought into the House, they were not making a great change in the constitutional system of the country as arranged by the Reform Bill? In conclusion, he must say, he could not see the justice of punishing the town of Hertford for the corruption which had been adduced, seeing what had been done at many contested county elections. No one lamented the existence of this corruption more than he did, but he could not admit the propriety of the proposed punishment. Whatever might be the fate of the Bill at this stage, he was satisfied it would undergo an extensive alteration in the Committee. Still believing that the measure was fraught with gross injustice, he begged leave to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be road a second time that day six months.
Mr. Nicholson Calvertrose, at the request of the noble Lord (Lord Granville Somerset), to furnish him with the information he was desirous of receiving as to the origin of the practice of issuing tickets to the voters of Hertford. Till the period of his (Mr. N. Calvert's) quitting the representation of the borough, the electors had never made choice of any other than some gentleman resident in the county; and up to that period, it was the practice after the election for the Members to give a dinner in the Town-hall to the higher classes of the electors, and the same to the poorer classes, by opening a certain number of public-houses within the borough. Upon Mr. Spencer Cowper's election, in conjunction with him, in 1802, it was represented by the more respectable class of inhabitants to the new Members, that the practice of opening public-houses was very objectionable,—creating in the town great annoyance to the more quietly-disposed inhabitants, by breaking windows, fights in the streets, &c. In consequence of this representation, it was agreed to by all parties, that in lieu of opening the public-houses, each elector should receive from each candidate whom he voted for, two 5s. tickets. This practice continued uninterrupted during the period he had represented the borough,—about twenty-three years. What change, if any, had taken place in this ticket system, he had no knowledge of, having in no way interfered in any of the subsequent elections. But it would not be making a fair and impartial statement of later events, if he omitted to say, that lately a great and predominating, influence had been created in the

89
borough, which threatened its independence with extinction, if no remedy were afforded by parliamentary interference.
Sir Robert Peelcould not acquiesce in the Amendment which had just been moved by his noble friend near him. Two reports had been presented upon this borough to the House by a Committee, which he was bound to say had taken a very fair and impartial view of the subject into which it had been appointed to examine. He should therefore testify his respect to that Committee, by giving his support to the second reading of this Bill. He would take, however, that opportunity of saying, that if treating amounted to bribery, or if proof of treating were to be considered as equivalent to proof of corruption, half the boroughs in the country might—nay, must be, disfranchised. He thought that some attempt ought to be made by law to define what treating was. The practice of giving 5s. refreshment tickets to electors of the lower orders had prevailed in the borough which he had the honour to represent for more than a century; indeed, he might say, ever since it was made a borough, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Yet he believed, in all that time, even when party spirit was at the highest, that there had never been a shilling given to any elector corruptly as the price of a vote. There never had been an impression in the country that there was anything corrupt in giving an elector a 5s. ticket for a supper. It was not thought corrupt for a candidate to invite the respectable electors to meet him, and to give them a dinner which cost 2l. or 3l. a-head; and that being the case, he thought that there could be no harm in the electors of a lower class arguing thus;—"If you, the candidate, will not admit us into your company in your social moments, give us at least the means of enjoying the festivities of the election." Of course he was speaking of what occurred after the election; still, if the House sanctioned such proceedings, it was impossible not to see that it opened wide the door to every species of corruption. He hoped that, in the Bill which was to be introduced upon this subject, due care would be taken to guard against the danger to which the freedom of election was exposed on this score. Looking at the tenor of the evidence collected by the Committee, he must say, that he was not
90
prepared to vindicate the conduct of all the electors of the lower class at Hertford. At the same time he must say that no speculative ideas of expediency, no theoretical notions of reform, would induce him to disfranchise the lower class of electors without delinquency being proved against them. He found that the Committee entertained the opinion that the lower class of electors at Hertford had participated in the corruption which they said prevailed there. He had examined the evidence which bore upon that point with great attention, but at present he was inclined to suspend his opinion. Though he supported the second reading of the Bill, he must say, that he could not assent to the Bill as it stood at present. He could not assent to that part of it which proposed an extension of the constituency. He found, that there were in the borough 430 respectable 10 l. householders. [Mr. Henry L. Bulwer: No, not respectable.] Did the hon. Member mean to say that the constituency provided by the Reform Bill was not respectable, and that the Bill proceeded upon a false assumption? Besides these 430 10 l. householders, there were 120 freemen, whom the report acquitted of corruption. When he found in a borough where lax practices prevailed, 300 voters who were admitted to be incorrupt, he must say, that it was hard to visit such a number of electors, who were exempt from blame, with the penalties which ought only to attach to guilt. The borough of Hertford had now a constituency of 550 electors exempt from all blame. Why should they one and all be mulcted of their fair influence in the representation, by calling in the people of Ware and Hoddesdon to share that influence with them. Again, the limits of the borough of Hertford were extended by the Reform Bill. The first Reform Bill disfranchised all the inhabitants save the 10 l. householders. The present Reform Bill contemplated the same extent of disfranchisement at a period not very remote, for the scot-and-lot voters and the freemen were only to retain their votes during life. In point of fact, therefore, the Reform Bill contemplated the borough of Hertford being left with about 400 electors. Why, then, should the House go beyond the Reform Bill now? He objected also to this bill in its present form, because, in reality, it gave five Members to

91
the county of Hertford. The new borough of Hertford, as formed by this bill, would constitute a small county, for ten agricultural parishes were, he saw, to be added to the borough of Hertford. It was often said in that House, that the agricultural interest was already too strong for the interest of the towns, and yet, supposing that to be the case, the House was now going to add to the strength of the agricultural interest by adding two Members to it, and by subtracting two from the interest of the towns. The men of Ware had entered Hertford with bludgeons to control an election in which they had no concern, and so far from punishing them, the House was now going to reward them for it, by investing them with the elective franchise. He conjured hon. Members to leave Ware where it was, for he thought that the including parts of counties in towns for the purpose of reforming the representation of towns, was a practice highly objectionable.
Mr. Henry L. Bulweradmitted, that there were 430 10 l. householders in Hertford, but he had applied the term respectable, to voters, as synonymous with independance, and they held their houses upon leases from some great proprietors, terminable after ten days' notice. Such a condition left it in the power of the landlord, before any election, to disfranchise all the persons whom he conceived to be opposed to his interest.
Mr. Halcombewould detain the House but for a very few moments. With any regard to either principle or consistency, it would be impossible for the House to sanction the Bill now before it. He had the most perfect confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Committee who made this Report; but if the House were to look to the very first principle which governed the administration of law in this, and every country, they must admit, that the parties whose rights were affected, ought to have an opportunity afforded them of being heard in their own defence. The case with regard to the electors of Hertford stood thus:—The first Committee was an Election Committee, and the sole point it had to determine was the good or bad return of the sitting Members. Before that tribunal the electors had neither opportunity nor power to be heard. The Committee, however, reported that bribery and treating had prevailed in
92
the borough, not only during, but previously to, the last election. But, so far as bribery or treating might have prevailed in the borough previously to that election, it was clear that this Committee could not fully inquire, or have the parties interested before them. And, although he did not mean to say there was any impropriety in their reporting incidentally upon this point to the House, yet if they were to have anything like English principle acted upon, the parties affected by the change recommended in that Report ought to have had an opportunity given them to show, if they could, that there was not sufficient ground for the charge against them, or that the remedy suggested was either unjust or unwise. But a second Committee was appointed, and for what purpose? not to make inquiry into by-gone bribery and treating, but to consider in a special Committee, for the convenience of the House, what used to be considered in a Committee of the whole House, how bribery and treating might best be prevented. Now, although this Committee certainly had the power of calling any persons as witnesses before them, yet, in point of fact, they examined only three witnesses; and who were they? The town clerk, who proved the number and classes of the voters, and two freemen, who proved the quantity of tickets given to the electors since 1823; but the electors were not called in their own defence. One of these witnesses had been since convicted of wilful and corrupt perjury. Though this man's evidence was mentioned, he believed, in the Report, the fact of a conviction for perjury was not adverted to. His evidence should have been rejected as that of a fellow totally unworthy of credit. If this Bill passed in its present shape, they would violate the very first principle of English justice, which was, that men should be considered innocent until they were proved to be guilty. No case ever occurred before in which a borough was disfranchised unless a majority of the electors was proved to be corrupt. This was the principle laid down in the Penryn case, and all they now proposed to do was entirely without precedent. Had he been a Member of the House at the time the measure was brought in, he would have supported the Reform Bill. It gave to the people of England what they were justly entitled to, and which they had too much intelli-

93
gence and independence to abuse. To derive from that measure all the good it was capable of conferring, the people required nothing more than a judicious and firm hand at the helm to steer a straightforward course, not a hand constantly veering to one side and the other. That measure had his approbation as one of extensive and generous reform, but not such paltry, pettifogging reform as this. Some general principle should be adopted and applied alike to all places in which bribery was proved to exist. Some of the boroughs were now too small. He could not say whether Hertford were one of them. He was no friend to corruption or rotten boroughs, and would most willingly lend a helping hand to any person who seriously undertook to cleanse the Augean stable. He begged the House to recollect that before the first Committee the persons complained of were not parties to the inquiry, and had no opportunity of defending themselves; and before the second Committee the witnesses were examined without the sanction of an oath.
Mr. Claywished to remind the House that the Election Committee thought, that there was sufficient evidence to implicate the electors of Hertford without the examination of the two witnesses whose evidence had been alluded to by the noble Lord. It should also be recollected that, in addition to the ticket money for treating, alluded to by the right hon. Baronet; it had been proved, that two or three times before the election, small sums had been distributed to the electors. The right hon. Baronet expressed some alarm lest, by the House adding a large surrounding constituency to the present electors for Hertford, the balance between the town and country constituency should be affected, and too much weight given to the agricultural interests. He denied that it could be so in the case before the House, as the great portion of the voters that it was proposed to add belonged to surrounding towns which were daily becoming of increased importance. He thought that there was no danger of increasing the influence of the agricultural interest, by the Bill under consideration. He was surprised, therefore, to hear the objections of the right hon. Baronet to the Bill before the House. He (Mr. Clay) recollected, that the right hon. Baronet was one of those who proposed and supported the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling
94
freeholders, who had not been charged with corruption, but with merely on one occasion asserting their privilege and acting independently. That measure was brought forward and carried on the ground that it was expedient to the general good that the Irish forty-shilling freeholders should be disfranchised. For his own part he was not of opinion that it was necessary to prove general corruption to justify disfranchisement; it was sufficient, if it could be shown that such a proceeding would be for the general good. He did not consider the elective franchise as a right or a privilege, but a trust for the general body. When, therefore, it appeared expedient to change or remove it, he considered the Legislature was justified in doing so.
Sir Henry Hardingeprotested against the doctrine laid down by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, that the House was justified in disfranchising a place on the ground or principle of expediency. A more dangerous doctrine could hardly be maintained. In his opinion, it was their duty to legislate on the matter before the House, not on the particular doctrines laid down by any hon. Member, but on the principles of the law. By the law, treating had never been regarded as bribery. He maintained, that no case of corruption had been established against the voters of the borough of Hertford; but it appeared, that some corruption had prevailed in the surrounding districts. The only case which had been strongly urged against his two noble friends who were returned for Hertford, and, in consequence of which they had lost their seats, was that stated by a man who had subsequently been convicted of perjury in consequence of the evidence he gave before the Election Committee. He could not help alluding to the constitution of the Election Committees. He was a party man, and those who entertained similar principles to himself in that House did not exceed 150 or 160, while the number of those who entertained opposite opinions was nearly 500. In the Ballot for Election Committees the different parties had not the same chances of being placed on an equal footing. He did not mean that the Members of these Committees were ever influenced by party motives; but it was hardly possible, considering the infirmities of human nature, to divest the mind of all bias. He should be extremely glad, therefore, if some

95
means could be devised of improving the constitution of the tribunal before which contested elections were tried. With respect to the present case, he could not help comparing the decision of an Election Committee on a Petition from an Irish borough complaining of corruption with that of the Hertford Election Committee. In the former case the Committee decided, that the returned Member was duly returned, but they declared that bribery had prevailed, and recommended that the House should direct the prosecution of Mr. Lisle by the Attorney-General, as it appeared to the Committee, that that individual had been guilty of gross bribery and corruption. The other Committee recommended that a different rule should be applied in the case of Hertford, where it was admitted that bribery had prevailed only to a very limited extent. The law should be the same in all cases; and, he was sure, that it would excite a general sensation throughout the country, that such a gross case as Newry should be allowed to escape, while Hertford was punished. If the Election Committees did not act more consistently than in these two cases, all confidence would be lost in their decisions, and men would rather be tried by any other tribunal.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had alluded to the small sum given to each voter; but, although only 5s. it was a bribe. The law set its face against the practice, and declared it to be illegal, as it was an inducement to electors to vote with other than conscientious feelings. The right hon. Baronet also said, that it would be extremely hard to let the richest class of voters have their feasts, and to deprive the poorer class of a share in the enjoyment. He protested against that as a dangerous doctrine, calculated to destroy the independence of the poorer class of voters. He would not consent to treating in any case, and would punish the parties whether treating were given to the rich or the poor. To tolerate the system would be giving a most improper advantage to the rich man, and would often lead to the exclusion from Parliament of the more deserving candidate. If the House were really anxious to put down bribery and corruption, they would, at once, resort to the Vote by Ballot. The right hon. and gallant Officer (Sir Henry Hardinge) protested against the opinion expressed by
96
the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets as to the question before the House being determined on the ground of political expediency, and said, that he considered such a doctrine to be extremely dangerous. But conferring or upholding political rights was altogether a matter of political expediency. He would ask what was the Reform Bill but a general and sweeping disfranchisement of a number of small boroughs for the purpose of political expediency? Political expediency was in that, as in other cases, the promotion of the general good. He was aware, that some hon. Members considered the term "political expediency" as most objectionable; but it appeared to him, that they did so because they did not understand it. The right hon. and gallant Officer said, that the Conservative party in that House was small in number as compared with that opposed to them, and that, therefore, there was almost a certainty to be a predominance of the latter in the selection of an Election Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the party he was connected with was 150 or 160 in number; but he (Mr. Roebuck) was connected with a party, composed of much fewer Members. That however had no influence on his judgment, and he should be happy to sec the functions of the Election Committee confined to a single Judge. He would rather have a single Judge to try the merits of an Election Petition than a tribunal composed of a hundred Members. He was satisfied, that the decisions of a single Judge would be much more satisfactory than those of the Election Committees. He was glad that the right hon. and gallant Officer, now that he was in the minority, entertained the opinions which he did in the constitution of an Election Committee, though he must express his regret, that those opinions were not entertained by the gallant Officer and his friends when they constituted the majority of the House. The House of Commons, from its nature, was not competent to perform a judicial office. He, therefore, thought it would be better if there was a single Judge for the trial of all cases of contested elections. He would not care from what party such a Judge was selected, as the eyes of the country would be on his proceedings, and he would not dare to be dishonest. He would not, however, allow the Judge to have a Jury, on which he might throw the responsibi-

97
lity of the decision off his own shoulders.
Sir James Scarlettwas astonished when he heard the hon. member for Bath say, that political expediency was founded on political rights. He (Sir James Scarlett) was not astonished that the hon. Member was connected with a very small party when he entertained such opinions. Such a principle went to the foundation of every right, and affected every legal privilege. The hon. Member, he had no doubt, confounded things. Political expediency might be acted on in reference to general rights, or as affecting a whole people; but if the principle of political expediency was to be acted upon as regarded the rights of a single individual, or of a few persons, it would be the most consummate tyranny. He really could not see any criminality on the part of those who participated in the festivities that took place in celebration of the triumph of the successful candidates at the election for this borough. If a man were to say, "I can't get a dinner from this candidate, and, therefore, I won't vote for him; but I can get a dinner from the other, and, consequently, I will vote for him," he would, most undoubtedly, be corrupt. But nothing of this kind had occurred, and, therefore, he could not, for his own part, conceive how any man could connect half-a-crown that was given for a dinner on such an occasion with bribery. He was persuaded, that there was not a Member of that House who would grudge such a sum to each of his supporters for the purpose of celebrating his return; and, therefore, some distinction ought to be drawn between a festivity in every way so moderate, and under the circumstances so natural, and actual downright bribery. As, however, they had consented to let the Bill go into Committee, it would only be a waste of time to trouble the House with further observations upon it at the present moment. He must, indeed, be permitted to say, that if this Bill were intended to establish any such principle as that of rendering a person who happened to partake of a dinner that was given after the election had terminated a criminal act, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. A dinner so given before the election commenced might deserve to be called "treating;" but he could not see upon what principle of justice they could punish those who participated in a festivity that took place subsequently to the close of an election.
Mr. Hardysaid, that it had been solemnly decided by the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, in a case brought before a Court of Law, that not only was treating between the teste and return of the writ illegal, but that treating at all, whether before or after those two events, was equally a violation of the provisions of the Act of Parliament. He must say, that he heard with surprise, the doctrine which had been laid down by the hon. and learned member for Norwich. That hon. and learned Gentleman said, that a distinction ought to be made between treating and bribery; but he defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to show him a single instance in which such a distinction was adopted by either the Legislature or any high legal authority in the country. It was true that such a distinction had been now and then made by Committees of that House; but no man who read the Statute of William 3rd (improperly, as he thought, called the Treating Act) could, for a moment, contend for such a distinction. The proposition was untenable; and, so far from admitting any distinction of the sort, the words of the Act were conclusive against it. The language of the Act. was, that no voter should receive any reward, benefit, meat or drink, office, employment, or other emolument, to induce him to vote, from the day of the teste to the day of the return of the writ, without being deemed guilty of bribery; and if during the interval, such practices were criminal, they were, according to his view of the matter, just as illegal, whether they occurred prior or subsequent to these events. In the case of the borough of Hertford, the Committee adopted the same view that he took of the law upon this question. They decided that treating, no matter when it occurred, was illegal, and upon that ground they set the election aside. But if it were not illegal, where was the necessity for observing secrecy, or why were men of straw invariably chosen to distribute tickets, and practise all the other acts of corruption, but because it would be useless to sue persons of that description for penalties? The Act of Parliament declared that 300 l. a-year was a sufficient qualification for the representative of a borough; but how could a man of 300 l. a-year, no matter what his other pretensions might be, hope to compete with a noble Lord who could expend a sum of 9,000 l. in carrying his

99
election, as was the case in the present instance. In the Bill which he meant to bring forward provisions would be contained for putting an end to the system of buying votes, and doing away with undue influence of every description. "Treating" before or after elections he proposed making illegal; for he thought the time had arrived when the system of influencing voters, no matter how, or by what means it was done, should cease for ever. While the present practices existed the qualification of 300 l. a-year was a perfect mockery. The evil was one that required the remedy which he proposed applying to it.
Sir James Scarlett, in explanation, said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was in error, in supposing the election cost 9,000 l. The whole of the expense, including 2,000 l. disbursed by the noble Lord himself, and the costs of the proceedings on the petition, did not exceed between 6,000 l. and 7,000 l.
Mr. Shawsaid, there was a manifest distinction between treating and bribery, and that this was the only instance that could be shown, in which punishment was inflicted upon a borough, merely on account, of treating. This measure could not be justified upon any principle that he knew of; and he entirely concurred in the opinion, that the expedience and right which hon. Members had talked of, were, to use the expression of the hon. and learned member for Bath, nothing more than a jingle of words without meaning.
Bill read a second time; and the issue of the Writ ordered to be further suspended till March 20th.

ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Murray Mr. Murray moved the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonsaid, that he hoped his hon. friend (Mr. Murray) would give some positive reasons why he introduced this measure, and mention his motives for bringing it forward at the present time. For his own part, he had expected that the bringing forward of the measure would have been delayed until after the general Bill for regulating the marriages of Dissenters in England had been introduced. By waiting until after that time, an opportunity would be afforded of bringing forward the measure with far greater propriety. When they reflected on the
100
very grave consequences that must necessarily attend the introduction of his hon. friend's Bill, he thought the House would join with him in soliciting his hon. friend to withdraw the present Motion, in order to give the Bill more mature consideration, and the better chance of passing in a more useful and general form. He trusted his hon. friend would not press his Motion, but, if his hon. friend should persevere, he earnestly hoped that he would cause to be removed from the Bill many of its objectionable parts, in order to make it prove more palatable to the people of Scotland, than it certainly would be if it were allowed to pass in its present shape. If he opposed the Bill in its actual form, it was not because it proposed to remove the penalties from Catholic priests for celebrating marriages in Scotland, for, on that point, he agreed with his hon. friend; but he had yet to learn, why the Roman Catholic clergy should alone enjoy privileges so wide as those which were asked for them—privileges wider than were possessed by the respectable dissenting clergy. If his hon. friend should consent to remove the second clause of the proposed measure, which undoubtedly was the most objectionable one in it; and if he would extend it to the removal of all penalties from the general body of Dissenters for celebrating marriages—if his hon. friend would consent to do this, his Bill would be less objectionable than it was in its present form. The hon. and learned Member referred to the preamble of the old Bill, and said, that one Act was already virtually repealed by the Act of Parliament of the 10th of Anne, c. 7, by which Act the episcopal clergy obtained privileges such as these, and he considered they were well entitled to have these privileges. His hon. friend; well knew, since it must be known to almost every body, that the Dissenters in Scotland had for a long series of years solemnized marriages without a question having been put to them on the point. Marriages differed in Scotland from what they were in this country, because they were there a civil act, not required to be celebrated by the clergy. He hoped to have seen more of his hon. friends present; and it was a matter of regret with him to see, that besides himself, there were but one or two Scotch Members present whilst a measure of such moment was being discussed. He must express his earnest hope that his hon. friend would withdraw

101
his present Motion, and defer his Bill until the general Bill relating to the marriages of Dissenters in England should be brought forward.
Mr. Murraysaid, that the present Bill was founded on the principle of removing penalties respecting the celebration of marriages from Dissenters in general. He assured his hon. friend, that such was the case; and he was glad to perceive that upon that point they both in reality agreed. He begged his hon. friend not to object to the second reading of the Bill, but to allow it to go into Committee. His hon. friend could then make all the objections he thought fit to portions of the measure; and he begged to assure his hon. friend, that whatever objections, alterations, or amendments, he should be pleased to throw out, when the Bill arrived at that stage, they would receive on his (Mr. Murray's) part, the closest and most marked attention. He did not feel himself in any way called upon to delay the introduction of the present Bill until that relative to the marriages of Dissenters in England should be brought in, for marriages in that country, and in Scotland, stood on so different a footing, that in Scotland they could not at all avail themselves of what might be done in this country on the subject. What was the law in Scotland regulating marriages? Why, any two persons—no matter whether they were nailers, tinkers, or others—might say in the presence of a witness of a similar sort, that they were married, and such a marriage would be valid in the face of the law. He was not asking to introduce a Bill in favour of the Roman Catholics exclusively; butt he was asking for something to enable the Roman Catholics to do properly what they could not now do in a country where marriages were contracted so loosely—in a country where persons might write to one another, proposing marriage, and then go to bed; after which, such a mode of matrimony would be considered valid in the eye of the law. He considered that it was the duty of every moral person to remove those practices or laws which in any way tended to lead to difficulties or doubt. But his hon. friend said, that it was not necessary. He begged to call the attention of his hon. friend to what occurred in 1815, at the Judiciary Court of Inverness, respecting a marriage solemnized by a Roman Catholic clergyman. A part of the charge was, that this marriage was,
102
besides, a clandestine one. This point was given up, and the Court held that a marriage solemnized by a Roman Catholic priest, subjected him to punishment and penalties, although the bans had been regularly published. He conceived that, under such circumstances, it was a duty that devolved both on him and his hon. friend, to support the present measure. If his hon. friend would afford him that support, he promised to pay every attention in Committee to any changes his hon. friend might then propose.
Major Cumming Brucemust vindicate himself from the charges brought by his hon. friend, the member for St. Andrew's, (Mr. Johnston) against the Scotch Members generally, of being absent from their duty when a measure so important as the present was brought forward. He admitted its importance, and being aware of the interest his constituents felt in every Bill touching their Roman Catholic fellow subjects, he begged to inform his hon. friend, that he was now in his place to attend to it. He agreed in the views taken by his hon. friend of this measure. He concurred fully in his willingness to do away with every penal Statute affecting the Roman Catholics; but he thought the Bill should stop there, and not proceed to enactments, which seemed to place the Roman Catholics on a different and more favoured footing than other Dissenters in Scotland. His hon. friend, the member for Leith, (Mr. Murray) seemed to have misunderstood the ground of the objections stated by the member for St. Andrew's, than whom no one was more averse to penal enactments on account of religious opinions. The hon. member for St. Andrew's, had stated his concurrence in that part of the Bill which went to sweep away all penalties; but he objected to the second principle involved in the Bill, which was a principle of preference of the Roman Catholic over other Dissenters from the Established Church. In all this he fully concurred. He thought that any attempt to show such a preference should be resisted by the House, because its tendency would be to awaken that feeling of religious animosity between Protestant and Roman Catholic, which was so wisely deprecated by several hon. Members in the debate of last night, when the hon. and learned member for Dublin submitted to the House his Motion respecting the oaths taken by the Roman

103
Catholic Members of that House. This frequent introduction of questions affecting the Roman Catholics, might give countenance to the idea that the great measure of Catholic Emancipation was not intended to be final; and the minds of those conscientious Protestants—and they were very numerous—who had unwittingly acquiesced in that measure, but had acquiesced because such was the will of the Legislature, and because of the assurance that the question would, by its passing, be finally set at rest—would again be thrown into a state of alarm. He would assure the House that this anti-Catholic feeling of Scotland was far from being extinct; and it would, in his view, be the height of imprudence to do anything which might have a tendency to re-awaken it. In the district he had the honour to represent, two very numerous meetings were held in the course of last autumn, to promote the principles of the Reformation, and discountenance the growth of Popery. They were held in the town of Inverness, and were very numerously attended, and by persons of the first respectability. He had been requested to attend them, but had declined, and had even endeavoured to dissuade their promoters from holding them, because he feared their effect might be to re-awaken a spirit of religious animosity. He mentioned the circumstance to show that the anti-Catholic feeling was still prevalent in Scotland. From what had fallen, however, from the hon. member for Leith, he was glad to believe, that the hon. Member was willing in Committee to modify his Bill, so as to render it acceptable to all classes of conscientious Protestants, and, as he concurred in a desire that all penalties should be removed, he should not oppose the second reading.
Mr. Robert Steuartsaid, although there might exist a law prohibiting Protestant dissenting clergymen from celebrating marriages similar to that against Catholic clergymen, there was no instance on record of its having been put in force; on the contrary, all Gentlemen connected with Scotland knew that the episcopal and dissenting clergy were daily in the habit of celebrating marriages among their congregations. He begged to disclaim, for those parts of the country with which he was connected, that illiberal feeling which the hon. member for Inverness stated to exist in the north of Scotland against the late
104
concessions to Catholics. He believed that, so far from such prejudices now being entertained, no vote of his last Session gave greater satisfaction to his constituents than that in favour of removing the civil disabilities now affecting the only persecuted class of his Majesty's subjects. With regard to the Bill before the House, to show the absurdity of the present law, he would beg to put a case. A man and woman might acknowledge a marriage before a Catholic priest and his clerk, and that acknowledgment, duly attested, would be valid in law, but if the priest ventured to bestow a nuptial benediction according to the rites of his Church upon the parties, he would be subject to the penal Statutes which his hon. friend, the member for Leith, sought by the present Bill to repeal. He trusted the House would at once consent to remove so preposterous a state of things as the present Statutes against the Catholic clergy in Scotland.
Mr. Sinclaircordially supported the Bill. He thought that the Roman Catholics were peculiarly entitled to this relief, because they were differently circumstanced from other Dissenters in Scotland, who, in common with the members of the Established Church, hold, that marriage is a civil contract, whereas, it is, by the members of the Romish communion, deemed a Sacrament, and requires a religious ceremony for its completion. He was as anxious as his hon. friend, the member for St. Andrew's, to impede the progress of popery by all fair means, but wherever he could gratify the feelings, or show respect to the scruples of his Roman Catholic brethren, without any derogation to Protestant principles, he should deem it a privilege to act towards them in the spirit of courtesy and kindness.
The Bill was read a second time.

LIVERPOOL FREEMEN BILL.
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 10 l. 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 Bentinck: On 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 10 l. 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 10 l. 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 34,000 l. 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 50 l. 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 30 l. or 35 l, 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, 8,000 l. or 10,000 l., who nevertheless sold his vote for 12 l.!!! 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 8,000 l, or 10,000 l.; 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 50 l.; 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 50 l. 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 50 l. 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 10 l. 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 50 l., and yet he tells you also that he bribed his own father with a sum of 10 l.; 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 10 l. 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 Speaker: I 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. Wason: I 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 Speaker: The 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. Bulwer: The 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.
Mr. Wason: If the noble Lord said he did not mean to insult him, then he would tender an apology.
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.

LEAMINGTON PETITION—ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. Tancredin moving "that Counsel or Agents be admitted to be heard before the Committee on the Leamington petition in support of the petition presented by certain inhabitants of Leamington Spa, on the 11th instant," wished briefly to state the circumstances out of which the motion arose. A petition had been presented some time ago from a numerous body of persons, representing themselves as inhabitant rate-payers of Leamington Spa, in favour of having the elective franchise of Warwick extended to that town. Many of the signatures to that petition had been impugned as forgeries. Some of the parties who had signed that petition had presented another yesterday, alleging that the former was genuine, and offering to prove that fact. What he had now to move was, that these parties be heard by their counsel or agents before that Committee in support of their petition.
The Speaker, in putting the Motion, put it in the usual form—"that the parties be heard by their counsel or agents so far as their interests were concerned."
Mr. Tancredsaid, that the object of the petitioners was to have an opportunity of proving that the whole of the signatures to the first petition were genuine.
The Speakerexpressed a doubt as to how far the petitioners could, according to the forms of the House, be allowed to appear by counsel or agents before the Committee in any other character than that of merely advocating their own interests.
Mr. Tancredrepeated his former remark, adding that justice to the parties who signed the former, as well as the present petition, would not be done, unless they were allowed to prove that the allegations against them were unfounded.
The Speakerremarked, that the whole case was one of the most extraordinary which had come before Parliament within his recollection. When the former petition was presented, it was stated by the hon. and learned member for Dover (Mr. Halcombe) that the petition was a fraud upon the House, that it contained the names of parties alleged to be residents in Leamington, who had no existence there, and that the names of others who were resident had been put to it without their knowledge or consent. A Committee had subsequently been appointed to inquire respecting that petition; but it seemed to him that great difficulty would be to be encountered in going into the case of every party who signed the petition.
Mr. Tancredsaid, that the petitioners whose petition had been presented on the 11th offered, if allowed, to prove that the whole of the signatures to the former petition were genuine.
The Speakersaid, that that would no doubt relieve the House from some part of the difficulty, but not from the whole. Every turn which the case took presented a new and singular feature. Supposing that these petitioners could give the evidence they stated, still it was doubtful whether they could be allowed to be heard before the Committee, merely as amici curiœ and beyond their own interests.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that his attention had been called to this subject in an unexpected manner. He had found by the votes that his name, in his absence, had been placed on the Committee to inquire respecting the first petition from Leamington, in which it was alleged that a fraud had been practised on the House. He attended the Committee, and inquired for the parties who made the charge, and who were to adduce the evidence in its support. He was answered by the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Halcombe) that he it was who made the charge, and he would call evidence to prove it. He had understood, that the charge had rested on something to be brought forward by some parties who had petitioned to be allowed to prove the alleged fraud; but he found that that was not the case, and that the hon. member for Dover was the only party appearing to conduct the prosecution of the affair. Now, as to the Motion for the appointment of counsel to be heard on the part of the petitioners, and who would probably claim to be heard on matters not
120
connected with the immediate interests of the parties for whom they appeared, he agreed that that would be only to increase the difficulty; but he felt that if the Committee were to proceed with the inquiry, it would be impossible that they could do so unless they were assisted by agents whose local knowledge made them familiar with facts and circumstances as to the alleged signatures, with which the members of the Committee could not be supposed to be acquainted. He fully admitted that the House was placed in a difficulty by the appointment of the Committee, which if it were to go fully into the allegations made, must consume a great deal of time, and involve a very considerable expense. It would, however, be for the House to consider whether the present was a course in which they ought to proceed.
The Speakerwould remind the House of the circumstances under which the Committee had been appointed. When the hon. member for Dover first mentioned the subject as a breach of privilege, he applied to him (the Speaker) to know whether it were not a case which ought to take precedence of all other business. He informed the hon. Member that it was one of those cases into which the House would inquire if brought before it; but the question was put, whether or not there had been any petition presented complaining of this alleged breach of privilege, and the answer of the hon. member for Dover was in the affirmative. It was then, of course, the impression of the House that such a petition was before it, but on further inquiry it turned out that no such petition had been presented. This fact of course created a great difficulty as regarded the course which should be taken in the proposed inquiry. As to the appointment of counsel, the right hon. Gentleman repeated the difficulty which would occur in admitting them to act for parties as amici curiœ.
Mr. Abercrombyremarked, that another difficulty in the case arose from the fact that the claim of the petitioners now before the House did not rest on any petition which impugned their former petition, but on the speech of a Member of that House in his place. How the House could proceed in a matter which was in effect a claim to be heard in reply to a speech within its own walls he would not decide; but it certainly placed the Com-

121
mittee in a new situation, and one which added in no slight degree to the embarrassment as to the mode of conducting its inquiries.
The Speakerhere suggested, that probably the better course would be, to adjourn the debate on this Motion until the meeting of this House the next day, when they might have an opportunity of reconsidering the original proposition.
Mr. Spring Ricethought the suggestion was one which the House ought to adopt, for if it should appear that the ground-work of the appointment of the Committee had failed, they might then consider the propriety of rescinding the original Motion.
Mr. Aglionbyasked whether the House could retrace its steps in the appointment of the Committee, if it should be found that that appointment had taken place under a misconception as to the presentation of a petition, which petition, in fact, had no existence?
The Speakerhoped that hon. Members would not retire under the notion, that he had stated that this Committee had been appointed under the misrepresentation that a petition on the subject had been presented; for undoubtedly the House had a right to appoint the Committee even though no petition complaining of a breach of privilege had been presented. He had felt it his duty to put the House in possession of the fact, that when the hon. Member complained in his place of a breach of privilege, the question was asked whether that complaint rested on any petition presented to the House stating the fact, and the answer of the hon. member for Dover, was in the affirmative. It appeared, however, on inquiry, that in that answer the hon. member for Dover was mistaken.
The further debate on the subject was adjourned till the next day.