tend to destroy our confidence in that "final settlement" when we found the noble Lord proceeding, not by a direct and open attack, but by sap and mine, to assail and take away privileges which had existed by long prescription, and which were confirmed by the recent enactment of 1831. It shook our confidence in the permanency of our second charter when, within three years, we saw so important a branch as this lopped off under the pretence of municipal reform. If you proceeded against the freemen on the ground of bribery and corruption, in justice to those men you ought first to establish the existence of corruption before you attempted to punish them. It was not fair, on a general and vague presumption of bad repute, to destroy their rights. He admitted cases had been proved of freemen abusing their franchise and taking bribes; but if the argument built on that ground were good for destroying the rights of freemen, it was also good for destroying elective rights much more extensively. The case of Stafford had been referred to; and if in that or any other instance it was proved that the practice of bribery was inveterate, and the voters irreclaimable, he would be willing to punish them. But were no other parties liable to the charge of corruption except the firemen? Was it not notorious that the 10l. householders of the borough of Stafford were subject to the imputation of bribery? He could add another case in which proof of bribery was clearly brought home to the electors. He referred to the election at Liverpool in 1830. You might say that in this case it was the freemen of Liverpool who were bribed. They were; but was the bribery confined to freemen who were not also 10l. householders? And who bribed them? Here was the evidence of Mr. W. Miers, a merchant of Liverpool, who acted as president on Mr. Ewart's side, assisted by Mr. Thorneley and Mr. Harvey. That gentlemen stated, that he paid away large sums in bank-notes to voters—of what class?—poor freemen? no; but persons in respectable situations in life. The witness gave the names and occupations of some of those parties. 50l. was the highest price paid for a vote—it was given to a retired brewer. A captain of militia received 30l. or 35l., witness was not sure which, but he recollected giving this voter a certain sum, and that discontented with the amount, the captain returned and obliged him to give 10l. more. Three brothers, named Howard, "very respectable men," got 10l. a piece. A ship-carpenter, with whom the witness frequently had dealings and early in the day. He was worth 8,000l. or 10,000l.—"a very respectable gentleman." When asked whether the higher or lower class of voters received most in bribes the witness replied that he thought the middling class got the most, because they kept off. Witness could not specify the total expense of the contest of 1830; he did not know what other individuals might have paid, he could only say what he had disbursed himself, and he thought that about 34,000l. had passed through his hands. Now he (Sir R. Peel) dared to say, that in the distribution of this 34,000l. the lower class of voters did participate, but it was equally clear that the higher class, 10l. householders, and persons occupying premises of considerably greater value, did also share in the bribery, and their crime was infinitely greater. Such cases as those of the man of substance who accepted 12l. and the captain who came back for an additional 10l. were of a much more aggravated nature than any corruption among the humbler voters. He had a right to say, without any attempt at eloquent declamation, that poverty was not in itself a conclusive proof of a disposition to be bribed, and therefore that you ought not to act on a general assumption of the guilt of the humbler class of voters, but should have proofs of corruption before you inflicted upon them such a penalty as the present.
Captain Berkeley said he was aware it might be imputed to him, that in voting as he intended to do he was actuated by a desire to conciliate his constituents who were freemen but that was not the case. He advocated the cause of the freemen because it had justice on its side, and because no valid ground had been alleged for depriving them of the privilege which had so lately been confirmed.
Mr. A. Trevor next addressed the House but in consequence of noises not so parliamentary, which were kept up almost without intermission during his speech, very little of
