The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-07-30 00:00:00

.0 1 835 t Weecltes at that length, and with that accuracy to which t hy, (the honourable member) considers himself *juitly I ;tied. Mr. O'CONNELL complains, in the second place, the the gentlemen of the gallery have been recently in . 11 . e habit of mangling his brilliant ideas, misreporting his orations, di s j o i nting his periods, arid making him utter a ja r get superabundance of nonsense than comes within the strict rule of modern liberality. ;In Amt . Mr.iO'CoNNELL 18 incensed beyond measure, and breaks Artli into a torre nt of abuse against 'these. excell e nt p'ettims, whom he denounces as miserable hirelings, and base wretches, whom the Whigs have bribed to misrepresent his senti ments, and ki make him say that which he never uttered, in th e . i hope of undermining his popularity and destroy :g his reputation. In winding up the catalouge of grin ac ees Mr. O'CONNELL further insinuates that the cha racter of these reporters has of late been sadly deterio rated, inasmuch as their wages have been reduced, and that, consequently, they have neither talent to do justice to the his eloquence, nor the independence of mind to burst odious fetters imposed upon them by their masters, the proprietors of the Herald, Chronicle, and Times. r T. these grave accusations th e gentlikaen of the press res p o nd that they know no distinction of persons in the Reformed Parliament—that the speeches therein deli vered are the most insufferable trash they ever listened t°--that the language ocone-third of its members is caintelligible—that if they were to report literally they Wuld he accused of b r i ng i ng th e H ouse o f C ommons, Grammar, and the English lan guage i n t o con temthey pt' and th at, i n the particular instance of O'CONNELL, "Iv find nothing in his speeches which they have `" over and over again reported, until their eyes were red , a nd their hearts sore. As to any "particular or l4i,,tividi°us combination against him, th e y d ec l are , u p on ei r honour, that they are innocent, and that if occa :ally his, or any other man's speech be omitted or 41 '00, they protest that this either arises from the o l u tr ente length of the debates, or their earnest and anxi ous d esire to improve some peculiarity of idiom which. Y, from their classical education , * but imperfectly un qersi • and. In conclusion, they consider Mr. O'CONNELL'S (,1411)tertinellt reflections upon their " order" to be a breach the privileges of their house and a violation of the c'nstit. • , r e -a tton in chur c h an d s t ate ; an d t h ey h ave f urt h er solv ed that until the honourable member shall make an tht4eYPle apolo g y f or the indignities he has cast upon them, 4 shall in future care f u ll y a b sta i n f rom r e porting a ti lit gle syllable of any speech he is pleased to utter in the of Commons or elsewhere. use h t o th - • what a long breath it has taken us to do justice b e l'o'r and KETTLE! But the fun is too exquisite to 8150,7,Pped here. O'CONNELL has summoned the re har-sPle, or rather sham proprietor of the Times to the • k nt ,? the house. What he means to do with him it a l l ti Puzzle a conjuror to tell. Reporting speeches we th at 00 w is a breach of privilege, but we have yet to learn . 4 b Misreporting them, or not - reporting them at all, is tha r i e4e h of privilege. It is the accuracy of the report the- constitutes the offence. If a member be accused in and tie wsPapers of stating that which he never uttered, ter, t i l f . fictitious statement be injurious to his charac h the Publisher of the raper is liable to be indicted, or raw k o n i_ zs ,t'ed . by a civil action. O'CONNELL, therefore, is th e Y lighting with a shadow when he makes war upon hit:gentlemen of the fourth estate, the great majority of 41 are his countrymen, as furious revolutionists as self and in point of r e p u t a ti on equa lly , if no t more hrespectable than himself. He cannot compel them to re the bi ~_ 8 speeches; that he has the power of preventing btu. fr om repo r ti ng at a ll rema i ns to b e seen. ti le ' ic ficulous as the quarrel seems to be, we are_ by no sin e sorry that it has occurred. It is time that the u- It li s of reporting should be placed on a better footing. w as too long been an arbitrary and venal occupation. h ave Use the latter word deliberately. O'CONNELL may vd cause of offence • but he is only one in a hundred int'se hoses have been misreported, distorted, turne jotto ridicule, or invidiously suppressed altogether by the . r nlie rit h e3'men of the London papers. The reporters, with el a i„, a pparent warmth and well-assumed sincerity, dis til all corrupt, or p ersona l, or f ac tious influences in b eu reports. We have no wish to impeach their honour; ci i t t We susp ec t i ts average va l ue i s like t h at assigned to tin-EEN CAROLINE'S virtue when Mr. THOMAS DENMAN, C hief Justice of the King's Bench, told her to " Go, 8 61 no o • " Mr. O'CONNELL'S impartiality and Pntrt,, t • m • ". h e - Ism might, without suffering any disparagement, g irt in the same estimate. giat is delectable to consider that such a squabble ori nates most naturally in a reformed parliament. .In an ass embly composed for the most part of gentlemen such discussion could not have occurred, or at least would n ot hav e b een tolerate& The reform ers , h owever, are 45gged into it, and they must now either compel the Press to do impartial justice, or they must shut it out of t01,111,e gallery altogeth er . O ne only alternati ve rema i ns. 'ley might appoint report ers of their own — men sworn treport accurately—who sh a ll b e pa id according to their l eilraCy and impartiality. Th e reports which these Zen take might be sold to the different newspapers for a rßch lower sum than they at present pay to obtain them. 1, 11 this way the conductors of newspapers would be al wed their discretion in inserting more or less of the `Ports as they should think expedient ; but this advantage 111121_1.d b . e gained, viz. that they would be precluded from 44tnating the speeches, or distorting the meaning of . b tl Y Member. They might cut and hack as they please, 1.14 that which they did publish should be either the i t t e ral words or the unbiassed substance of the speaker. ae le Pres s has aided in reforming Parliament, and on the in °re of gratitud e it i s t i me t h at P arl i ament shou ld ass i st potterreforming the press. It is the clay reforming the we know, but n'importe hAtti n isters suffer e d another defeat on Thursday last, no t 14 which, we are happy to say, no lives—we mean 1„,,,8a/aries.--were lost! The effects of this new disaster 44 ' ci te at first believed to be of a very melancholy nature, na mely with dire calamities to a mighty empire, th reat to the meditated retirement of the Whigs, and a a de to lay down their arms. This intelligence caused streeeP sensation. There was weeping in Downing eon et, and wailing in Berkeley-square. Lord ALTHORP'S 4,artlttenance and the price of wool and mutton fell. The Lo rd ( T 4 many an hungry ex p ectant grew co ld at t h e news. ' Ri er , Jo RUSSELL, inn et, abjured poetry, and SPRING L or , figllreS, for ever. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the First of the Admiralty, instinctively hummed out — *bile " See the ship in the bay is riding," &c. la b„ --- -Jrd PALMERSTON was b usy, f or nearly three hours, Pttroin,,o. his cor res p on d ence w i t h L OUIS PHILLIPE, Don Uaptain NAPIER, and Doctor BOWRING. It was, \va s h rtu eless, a fal se a l arm . Th e ant i c i pated resignation h e „l'r e ciature. Ministers, on recons id er i ng the matter, a•itliale c onvinced that the country could no t be governed 441 OUt th em ,— that were t h ey to desert their s overeign, t he reit Y and ruin would be the i nev it a bl e result,—that pi a s ecurity of the church and the fundholder would be •tiot d n in jeop ar d y, — t h at t h e G REY f am il y would lose .t3si,'„„,`"°o a-year, the PLUNKETTS £40,000, the PA GETS the BROUGHAMS £25,000, the RUSSELLS 4 1 ,,,'"u, the T HOMSONS, W OODS, S MITHS, P ARKESES, Otb: L REYS, /ABERCROMBIES, LITTLETONS, and various vipt -r unhappy and unknown persons would be deprived tne hund re d thousands more, rather unequally di leaedf—in short, under all th ese c i rcumstances m i n i sters a n t to the side of mercy and charity, consented to retain 4 , c e for a few weeks longer, thereby conferring a last obligation o n th e K ING, whose servants they are, ~,,e'lpgratifyin g t h e wishes of an unanimous people, whose t are alone they have at heart. ~, e la bagatelle ! Long live humbug ! The gist heatit_unthis solemn farce is, that Lord GREY has been on 7, in the Lords two or three times , and the last time t h e 6iursd ay last, and Lord ALTRORP as many times in coll ea "Thoons, and yet these noble personages and their c 1 41 ,4 Fues still cling to office, as if they had an hereditary an moo it, and as if the two houses of Parliament were thi n i ste led togeth er f or no other purpose than to register tat edicts. t ttl io a n tt , e , r The time was when it was deemed a of honour and duty, on the part of an administra the to resign their seals of office to the KING, whenever ba 1 3 found themselves in a minority in either house of ent al ways . The determinate question, we *grant, was . . r ciN re ?Ile °I some importance. The Duke of 'WELLlNG qonslgned becaus e he was defeated by a small majo ch morethe civil list ; but Lord GREY has been beaten on 44(1 in l P° rtant u • Ln.A sa A ar y questions , and yet adheres to place undisconcerted by the ridicule of the public. R--. tILTHoRp 8 mot' on "'RV was beaten on the malt tax, and on s • , moreover bte for the abolition of sinecures. He t rPori ant much more n on the factory bill, a _ question than the civil list, and all this within V ie la st two or three months. Within the same space of enne, Lord G R EY N 011 uEbYseteilte oPfrepmoier himself, has been defeated, p re , ent ne ance, on the d efea , nst rtugal and secondly, in the uPon defeat —one Irish C hurch Bill. Here follows . s of another,one vote of censure coming upon the 'ttis b oth houses declaring his MAJESTY . S ter s t° he • ev nus , either ignorant or reckless of the mis atu re of their own measures —incompetent to countryl. zautvi n th e These and unworthy the confidence of the e n ' these defe.atrma _spparliamentary declaration s are on record, are now matter of history, —the follies mti'Lo blunders men are as notorious as is the sun in ke rn e ce o f prinle d . y . e Lord GREY continues to fill' the _ minister, Lord BROUGHAM is still the t k a P e tto r tt of the. fiiNo's conscience,-and the immortal Lord and t.,:nsdtiill presides over the finances of Great Britain Th I e ela °' h e t ,sein t e church bill on which ministers -Be 11 toe nOnoritr on Thursday was the 117th. -y • - •••••• • Y wits this clause power uas given to certain commissioners to suspend the appointment of clergymen to rectories or other livings " where divine service shall have been in termitted for a period of three years." The- power here proposed was to be retrospective, and when we consider what the state of Ireland has been for the last three years, the injustice and cruelty of the enactment are as glaring as possible. There are, it appears, upwards of sixty pa rishes in Ireland where there is no resident clergyman, and where no service has been performed for some con siderable time. But why ? Hear the answer of the Earl of LIMERICK, the father-in-law of the under-secretary to the Treasury, Mr. SPRING RICE. " The reason why, in some of them at least, service had.nOt been performed of late," says Lord LIMERICK, "was owing to the clergyman being apprehensive for his life. If such a power were acted upon, it was most likely from the hostility which the peasantry bore against the clergy, that no Protestant clergyman would dare afterwards to appear in these pa rishes." ! ! The Earl of WicxLow expresses a similar opinion. He says that " out of two hundred parishes which would come under the operation of the clause, there were but sixty-six in which the commissioners would be warranted in suspending the benefice, and of these sixty-six there was a large majority in which the non-performance of the Protestant service was occasioned by circumstances over which the clergyman had no control."' The Bishop of EXETER adds his testimony to the fore going as follows :—" He believed that the omission of divine service had not occurred in one single instance owing to the misconduct of the incumbent." These being uncontroverted and incontrovertible facts, what are we to think of that hollow and deceitful policy pursued by Lord GREY, by which, under the pretext of securing the Protestant church in Ireland, he was strik ing a blow at its very existence, obliterating its land marks, destroying its outposts, and robbing its humbler, persecuted, and unhappy ministers of the last remnant of their property ? But such was the object of the 117th clause in the spoliating bill. The hand of blood had been raised against the secluded pastor—his flock had been scattered—the walls of his temple desecrated—by whom ? By the savage peasantry—the slaVes of an idolatrous worship—instigated by demagogues, and their masters, the priests; and this being the case, Lord GREY steps forward to sanction their illegal acts, and complete the robbery and the banishment which these savages and heir priests had commenced. _ Every man of good feeling —every Protestant, magi -cry shame at the bare mention of this contemplated act of sacrilege ! It was not enough that the Protestant clergyman should be persecuted—it was not enough that he should be driven from his home and his pastoral duties—it was not enough that he should be hunted by ruffians, seeking his life —no, it was not enough—he had been made the victim of outrage and violence, and therefore he was to be made the martyr of Whig law and ministerial church reform ! The law had been trampled upon,—rebellion, if not encouraged, had been unchecked,—the plunderer had been conciliated in stead of being punished, and to complete the climax of folly, fraud, and crime, the innocent was to be sacrificed in the room of the guilty, and private property to be con fiscated merely to gratify the barbarOus and fiendish feel ings of the priesthood and their votaries. On the motion of the Archbishop of CANTERBURY the clause was modified, and the intentions of ministers were defeated. On this defeat poor Lord GREY threatened to resign, and why did he not ? Since our last publication the proceedings in Parlia ment on the Slavery Abolition Bill have equalled irr im portance any that have taken place from the first agita tion of the question. They are especially impressed with those qualities which we designated in that number by the terms " incertitude and irresolution on the part of ministers ; and on the side of the natural enemies of the colonists the same determination to commit injustice that has ever marked their conduct." Let the proceedings of Wednesday and Thursday last answer for the correctness, or otherwise, of this opinion. On Wednesday evening, upon the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moving the or der of the day to go into committee, Mr. CLAY proposed a resolution " that it is expedient that foreign sugars be admitted into this country for refining for exportation." Upon this Mr. POULETT THOMSON moved and carried, as an amendment, " that it is expedient that sugar be admitted for refining, under lock, for the purpose of ex portation." The amendment was one so manifestly necessary on every account, as a measure of precaution for the protec tion of the revenue, not less than for the avoidance of gross injustice to the British planter, that its adoption was quite a matter of course ; and we have no hesitation in declaring, that, bold and inconsistent as ministers have shown themselves in their career, it would have required more of hardihood than even they . poSsess to have con sented to the introduction of a measure for the refining of foreign sugar less guarded than the import of the words of the amendment in this case goes to establish. The discussion upon this subject presents a field for observa tion of which we propose to avail ourselves; but that we shall defer for the moment, in order to advert, which we do with feelings anything but satisfactory, to those parts of the business of Wednesday and Thursday applicable to 'the question of apprenticeship, as forming an important feature of this " fearful experiment." Need we ask if the discussion of Wednesday night, on Mr. BUXTON'S motion for the abridgment of the agreed term of apprenticeship indicates continued hostility to the colonist ? Need we ask if the debate of Thursday marks that feeling as less prominent; or is calculated, on the other hand, to absolve Mr. STANLEY, as the member of the executive government more immediately before us, from th e charge of " incertitude and irresolution" in the execution of his official duties ? We may refer to what we have said within a few weeks on the subject of the proje c t e d di st i nct i on i n t h e terms o f l a bour for the so called praedi a l an d non -prmdial negroes ;—we may then refer to the rejection of Mr. BUXTON'S motion of Wed nesday, and remark upon the freedom, the more than anxiety, the exultation with which Mr. STANLEY came forward, on the next afternoon, to defraud the planters of five-twelfths of the sorry protection which was left to them by the bill. When we have done this we may then ask—and the question is put with mingled feelings of shame and indignation—ls it ignorance or irresolution — folly or fraud--cowardice or corruption—is it any of these, or a compound of all, which has led to the gross breach of faith thus unblushingly committed by the Govern ment in their dealings with the colonists ? The first perusal of the bill, framing distinctions between the different classes of labourers, forced upon our minds strong forebodings that something lurked under those provisions which portended further injury to the op pressed West Indian. We did not give utterance to our suspicions on this head, however freely we animadverted on the impolicy of such regulations. Our anticipations were of the nature here expressed ; we had, neverthe less, hopes, feeble ones we 'admit, that they might prove erroneous. Our jealousy of the misconduct, and want of either reason or justice in the course pursued by ministers on every branch of the question, was strong, as, we contend, it was justifiable ; but we had still trusted in some degree to the belief, that the measure of injustice to the Colonists was, on all hands, deemed full; —full it certainly was to the brim, and running over. We could not imagine that a series of resolutions, sifted as were those passed by the House of Cornmons,—pro fessedly drawn up by ministers "after deep and anxious deliberation,"—avowedly connected in their parts, with full and mutual dependence. upon each other,—explained not once but over and over again, where explanation was wanting, in the sense in winch we contend that they were understood by all the world, as regards the term of apprenticeship being fixed at twelve. years, without distinction of classes ;—we could not, we repeat it, ima gine that, with such resolutions, so recorded, and thus verbally affirmed in the strongest manner, in the spirit and sense which, we maintain, should have rendered them impervious to dispute or quibble,—never could we sup pose that further acts of fraud and injustice so glaring as those now brought to light could be contemplated. The evidence of the week goes far to justify the imputation that the original distinction of seven and twelve years in the term of service of the two classes was a matter of concert between th e gov ern m e n t and the abolitionists; a mere stepping stone, to ease the descent to the shorter term - for the whole number of negroes ; and that a.cor responding line of conduct, in some other and leading parts of the question, may occur, is by no means a mat ter of improbability, thus frittering by the remnant of the colonists' hope, in the exact ratio of the destruc tion of public character, honour, and principle, in mi nisters. These may seem harsh expressions ; but they are merited, in no qualified degree, by those to' whom they are applied ; nor are we disposed to record, in less forcible terms, our feelings with regard to the weak, the vacillating, the disreputable course that has been followed from the commencement of the inquiry into West India affairs ; a course that will too soon develop circumstances and events from which we should be glad to feel justified in averting our regard. If, in the amended form in which the question of re fining foreign sugars now stands, we might feel (his , posed to apply less strong language to that part of the affair, we have still no inclination to flinch from a free examination into the motives and objects of those more immediately interested in that branch of this mighty subject. We will, however, reserve ourselves for that discussion with an intention of entering upon it when the .provisions of Mr. POULETT THoNisores bill shall be before us. We are sorry to hear that the Earl of Lonsdale has been in disposed since his arrival at Lowther Castle, haying caught a severe cold on his journey from the seat of his brother, Sir John Lowther, Bart., of Swillington. We..are happy to hear, however, that his lordship's health is improving. STATE OF TRADE.—We have no material alterations to no tice in the state of the woollen manufacture in this neighbour hood. The demand continues good, but the merchants are re luctant 4.) give, a price commensurate with the. rise in the raw material, and the •clothiers, thcrefore t still complain of small profits.—Leeds httelligimeer, THE LI VER POOL STANDARD LIVERPOOL ELECTION. SPEECH OF MR. NICHOL, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, IN DEFENCE OF THE BURGESSES. Mr. NICHOL—I am afraid I must now trouble the committee with some remarks, and I am afraid, at the same time, I must apologize if I run into what the committee may consider un necessary length, because I have not seen the evidence from the time it was given till the present moment, and I am not therefore prepared to curtail my remarks as I might have been if I hall had a more ample opportunity of examining the evi dence. I will, in the first instance, dispose of one or two preliminary points; so that I may leave myself clear to consider the different elections which have been the subject of discussion and examination before this committee. In the first instance, I will only just thus far allude to the charge of trafficking in places. As I before said, it bears in no way upon the freemen; and nothing can induce me to say a single word more upon the subject. Sir, the next charge which has been introduced is a charge which I think has been very unnecessarily introduced, and I must say, in my judgment very invidiously introduced. It is a charge and an investigation into the conduct of the Corpora tion of Liverpool. The intention, it is true, has been disavowed to make any charge against the Corporation; but if the com mittee look at the whole scope and tendency of the evidence which has been adduced, they will see that this investigation has been much more directed to an attack upon the Corporation itself than upon the freemen generally. Sir, this opinion is not only derived from the tendency and scope of the evidence, - but the conunittee will recollect that yesterday Mr. Myers gave in evidence, that when he was served with the subpoena, the person that served him, Mr. Duncan, the partner of the agent in this prosecution, told him that the en quiry was more directed against the Corporation than against the freemen of Liverpool. The other side certainly have varied the ground of their charge a little during the course of this investigation . The first day or two, and in the early part of the investigation, was directed chiefly to degrade and vilify the freemen. The latter part of it has been taking up the de fence of the freemen and asserting their right in contradiction to the rights of the Corporation. Now,, sir, this is really a change of system for which I was a little unprepared. At one moment they are the prosecutors of the freemen, and at the other moment they are their protectors. Sir, in this investigation they have gone into all sorts of en quiries ; they have examined as to the amount of the pro perty of the Corporation and their estates, the manage ment of their estates and the management of the corporation funds, and the advantages that the mayor would derive from being mayor of the town. They have enquired into the consti tution of the Common Council, and they have directed their charges not only against the Corporation, as a body, but nearly against every individual member of that Corporation. Sir, I must say, that in every one 'of these respects, in my humble judgment, the attack has most entirely . failed. As to the ma nagement of the corporate funds, it is in evidence before you that the -whole.,of those funds, with a very small exception of about £2OOO a-year, are employed in 'the improvement and beautifying of the town—in adding facilities to its trade, and in every way benefiting the inhabitants of the town. It is in evi dence before you, that no part of the funds have been applied to electioneering purposes; it is in evidence before you, that the accounts of those funds are annually laid before the great body of the freemen, and printed and published and circulated amongst them; it is in evidence, as to contracts, that the con tracts for all large works are let out by sealed tenders, and, as far as I can see in this case, the whole management of the Corporation is clearly and distinctly proved to be as frugal as it is possible. Now, I have said that this investigation is unnecessary ; I must say further that it is peculiarly unnecessary at the present moment, when, in answer to an address from the house, re quiring that a - commission should be appointed to enquire into corporations, a commission has been appointed which has been directed to proceed with the utmost possible despatch, so that Parliament may be able to legislate upon the subject early in the ensuing session. I must say that this investigation be comes unnecessary, that it has saddled the country with a very useless expense, and when it is particularly considered that my two learned friends on my right hand are members of that commission, I do not think that th ere was any occas i on to enter into it upon the present occasion, and I will say that, in my judgment, it has not been carried on with the greatest spirit of candour and fairness possible. Sir, I have said also that there have been attacks upon indi viduals. The committee will remember the sort of insinuations which were thrown out against Alderman Wright. Attempts were made, very laboured attempts, to show that Alderman . Wright received a ticket, and was consentient to the bribery in 1827; that gentleman was put into the box yesterday; he dis tinctly and positively denies that he was consentient to any act of bribery upon that occasion ; he positively declared that in no single instance in his life had he given money to a man to vote : he stated that during the whole of that electiotk , he was upon the hustings, acting for Mr. Porter, who w as th en ill; that during that election the duty of returning thanks to the different freemen and of shaking hands with them for Mr. Porter, fully occupied his time; that in the evening he went with them to Mr. Porter's house, and there made a speech; and that he was so exhausted with the labours of the day, that he never went to any committee-room or was in any way engaged in any part of that contest. It also appears that at the close of that contest he presided at a public dinner, and that upon that occ as i on hi s health was proposed in a very laudatory speech by Mr. Ratcliff. Now, sir, whether the old maxim of laudare se vani, vituperce stulti est, applies to this case, I leave to the committee to decide. Now, sir, it is fair, in justice to Mr. Wright, alio to state that in the election of 1830 he was in no way engaged; he was at that time ill; he was taken from a sick bed to vote for Mr. Swart; and in no way whatever did he interfere in that election. Mr. Wright, therefore, stands omni excepti one ma j or; an d th e a t tac k that has been made upon him does not injure him so much as it does those that have made it. Equally clear does it appear in my humble judgment that the inuendos and insinuations which have been thrown out against the other magistrates of that borough reflect but little credit upon those who have made them. The evidence adduced in vindication of these gentlemen proves that they were the most respectable and highest merchants and gentlemen in the town 'of Liverpool. There is no trait in any part of their life that has been pointed out, or that could be pointed out, that in any sway has reflected upon them, and, therefore, I do say that these general insinuations and inuendos against them rebound back with very'great force against those who make them, and that the evidence which has been brought forward upon this occasion redounds more to the credit of those who have been attacked than of those who have ventured to asperse their character. Sir, whether they have aspersed their character or not I will not stop to inquire—the attempt has been made, whether it has succeeded or not : as my learned friend near me suggests, they " hint a fault and hesitate dislike." Sir, another sort of charge which has been made against the Corporation is, that they have exerted influence in elections. Now it is most clearly and distinctly proved that the Corpora tion in no way interfered in elections as a corporate body, and those individuals who did exercise any influence in an election merely exercised that influence which arises from an interchange of kindly offices between the employer and the employ . ed; and I for one, and I am sure every one that admires our mixed con stitution, would be the last in the world to wish that that sort of influence should be destroyed. If that influence is used with out doing violence to the conscience, and without doing injus tice to the feelings of individuals, I say that it is rather corn mendable and praiseworthy than in any . way to be blamed ; I am sure that is the doctrine of our constitution, and I am sure that that was the doctrine which was held forth at all times during the discussion of the Reform Bill, and must, as long as our constitution remains, be the doctrine of the law of England. Sir. I have now shortly attempted to defend the Corporation from the attacks that have been made upon it. I only say that in my humble judgment they have come forth from this search ing investigation perfectly untainted, and that this investiga tion, so far from doing them harm, must set them right in the eyes of the world, and convince them that the imputations which have been so lavishly scattered about for the last three years were unfounded. Sir, I will now just say a few words upon a few points of law. Some attempt has been made to show, and to treat as bribery the non deduction of the day's wages at the end of the week, and entertainment given to the electors, without any previous promise, after the election was over. Now I can shew the com mittee, I think to their full satisfaction, that that has never been held to be bribery; on the contrary, that it has been held, by a committ ee o f the House of Commons, on the most deli berate consideration, perfectly innocent. I refer to the case of Cirencester, which is reported in Ist Peckwell's Election Cases, page 467. - That case occurred some years ago, in 1802 : it was Cproposed, on th e part of the petitioners, to prove that a Mr. npps, also one of Mr. Beach's committee, immediately after the election, near the hustings, and in the presence of the sit ting members, declared to the voters that they might receive half a guinea each instead of a dinner. It was not pretended that this could be connected with a prior promise; and it was objected that this evidence was inadmissible, because such an act did not constitute any offence : and the case of Sudbury, Lord Glenbervie, 137, was cited as a stronger case than the present: there the petitioners stated they could prove a very public distribution of money among the voters for the sitting members, after the election, but as they did not say they had any proof either of money being given, or promises of money being made by them previous to or during the election, th e committee seemed to think this would not affect their seats, and no evidence was gone into on this head. The case is also summed up in this manner.—" The counsellor the sitting mem bers was prevented from making his reply (so clear were the committee upon it), by the committee declaring their decided opinion that the evidence, if admitted, would amount to no thing, and that the statute would not bear the construction put upon it by the petitioners." Therefore solemnly deciding that unless there was a previous promise, this sort of entertainment after the election, or non deduction of wages, or any circum stance of that sort, would not vitiate the election; and I beg the committee to remember, that in no one case whatever, except the elections of 1827 and 1830, is there any single instance of a previous promise being made. Sir, the next point to which I will call the attention of the committee is the payment of fees for the admission of free men. Now it is, perhaps, almost unnecessary to go into this, because it does so happen that th e only cases of payment f o r the admission of freemen were at the elections of 1827 and 1830, in the former of which 430 were adtaitted, and in the latter 800; but still it is not fair that any odium should attach to freemen upon the ground of those payments, for I can shew to this com mitted that these payments of fees have been declared again and again to be perfectly legal. CHAIRMAN.—it is unnecessary, I think. Mr. NicnoL.—Then the committee are of opinion that the payment of fees is legal. There was a case in 1774, and there was the case of Bristol in 1786, and the case of Worcester in 1819, where Colonel Davies's agent (the agency being distinctly proved) paid a large amount of the admission fees; Lord Al thorp was upon the election committee ; and in that case the committee decided that the payment of admission fees, without any previous promise as to the vote, did not vitiate the election. And the committee will recollect that in this case, upon the evi dence of Mr. Pennington and Mr. Whittle, it was proved th a t there was no previous knowledge. In that case, of Colonel Davies, he was declared the sitting member,. and it was held not to be bribery, but that it was merely affording the freemen, in the same way as the payment of travelling expenses, an op portunity of exercising their franchise. If, the committee wish me I will go into that point. CHAIRMAN.—Yes ' I mistook the feeling of th e comm i ttee. Mr. NICHOL.—The first case is in the Ist Dougfas '267 ; that in the Bristol case, "on the head of bribery the facts came out to be that a committee of gentlemen who were in the interests of Mr. Burke and Mi. Crayer had paid the fees of admission for the new freemen with money raised by subscription for that purpose, but that neither of the candidat es h a d su b scr ib e d or paid any of that money, and that no promise had been desired of the freemen so admitted to vote for any one as the condition of their fees being paid. On Mond a y, th e 20th o f F e b rua ry, th e committee, by tir chairman, informed the house that they had determined that the two sitting members were duly elected." The next case I will r e f er t o i s in Male 352; they state the Bristol case again, and say that there had been no contrary de cision ; they then state the . Worcester case: "In the Worcester case, in 1819, the point which was chiefly relied upon after bri bery and treating was that of paying for the admissions of free men who were admitted after the election began ; the admission of freemen during the . poll was not complained of, but it was proved that the admissions were regularly paid for by an agent of the sitting member; the committee however (as in the Bris- tol case referred to by Mr. Simon) declared the sitting mem ber duly elected." There is a fuller report of that case in a separate report of the proceedings of the Worcester election ; that committee took place in 1819: I know that was prior to the reform bill, but so are these acts here, and if those persons have been acting upon the faith of the decisions of three committees of the House of Commons, you can hardly disfranchise them upon that ground : the agency was proved, and I will merely refer the committee to one or two passages in the report: Mr. Griffiths was called, and Proved to be the agent of Colonel Davies; the question was asked, " Perhaps you can tell me from your memorandum the amount Mr. Griffiths paid each day ?—X es, I can, he paid me on the 15th £l5 155., on the 17th £l2 125., on the 18th £22 ls., on the 19th £2O 9s. 6d., on the 2.3 d £7 17s. 6d., and on the 24th £7 17s. 6d. Now, before the election, or within a month or within two months previous to the election, had Mr. Griffiths actually applied to you for many freedoms ?—A great many. Had he paid you for many?—Yes. Can you state the amount of those sums ?—N o, I cannot. How much do you suppose? — They began to take up on the election account the first Mon day in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, and from that time to the election week four hundred persons had their freedom one way and another, and I should state, speak ing within moderation, that Griffiths paid for half of them be tween the first Monday in January 1818 and the 28th of June." Then the agency is proved, and in Mr. Warren's speech upon that occasion, there are these passages—" One of the honour able members of the committee asked whether there had been any case upon this point. It was admitted there never had been any case in which it had been decided that the taking up freedoms during the election was bribery." That is an admis sion not contradicted by the other side. They then go into the case of 1774, and the case of Bristol in 1786, and Mr. Warren uses these arguments, which I will rather read as a part of my speech than use my own arguments, because I cannot comprise them in language so clear as this is, in which, also, they come with the authority of Mr. Warren's name. He says, " you should prove a conversation ; writings do not often take place on such subjects, but some discourse with the agent or the principal by these persons stating that if they would vote for a particular candidate they should Ihave their freedoms; short of that you open the door for every species of conjecture, and upon this construction, with whatever view given, however laudable, you have nothing to do, but prove it given during the course of the election, and to shew that the person voted for the party giving it, and then to conteld that that affects the seat of the sitting member, either by his own act or the act of his Agent." Then he sums up the principle deduced in this case as follows— "I apprehend the principle to be deduced is this, that you must show that there was a desire expressed when the money was given, or a demand that the party should vote in conse quence of it, because, in the Bristol case , _ the latter part of it you will observe goes directly to prove this, that a desire ought to have been shewn of a promise to vote for some one as the condition of the fees being paid. Then there is that second case in 178 d, which appears to he quite decisive on this point; then there is the argument which I have just used myself as to the.payuaent of travelling expenses, which has always been con sidered legal, as affording the freemen an opportunity of exer cising their franchise, that has stood upon the same ground; I put him in a situation to exercise his franchise, but I do not tell him how he is to exercise his vote." The committee having met and deliberated came to the following resolution:—" That Thomas Henry Hastings Davies, Esq., is duly elected a citizen to serve in ,this present parliament for the city of Worcester." Therefore, that clearly establishes that in 1774 and 1776, and in 1819, the committees have all come to a solemn decision that the payment of the fees of admission of the freemen is not illegal and would not vitiate an election. I think, then, that I should not press that point further upon the committee. It is quite clear that the committee is guided by precedents as any other court is guided, and where there is a current of precedents it is as much guided and bound by it as by an act of parliament. Something has been said as to an understanding with the Town-clerk at the time of taking out those .freedoms. Now, what does that understanding come to? It is merely this, that as I have now shewn that it is legal for any person to pay the admission fees for the freemen, the Town-clerk does not insist upon being paid those fees immediately he issues each separate admission, but insists that they shall be paid - that evening, he being responsible to his employers for the fees, and merely tak ing the responsibility of the gentleman who is to pay the fees as his security. Now, what there is in any way improper in that transaction I am at a loss to conceive. Sir, I have now, I believe, cleared away all the preliminary matter, and I will come directly to the evidence as to the elec tions. I will first take the elections of 1827 and 1830, I will then go to the elections previous to 1827 and 1830, and I will then take the elections subsequent to 1830. Now with respect to the elections of 1827 and 1830, I am not going, as I have said again and again, to deny the guilt of those elections. All that I shall put to the committee is this, that in both cases it was a mere struggle between two private parties, in which no political interests were involved. It is proved that on both sides gentlemen of the most opposite political sentiments were en gaged, and I would submit that those mere accidental outbreaks, though they are without any excuse, afford no fair criterion of the character or the disposition of the freemen who even then were entitled to exerc►se that franchise, still less do they afford any fair criterion of the character and disposition of those who now appear upon the register, a very large proportion of whom were .not in any way impl►cated in the transactions of 1827 or 1830. Sir, I am sorry to say that the contagion in that case spread far and wide. Mr. Atkinson, a £5O householder, proved that his father received a sum of £lO. It was proved by another witness that a retired tradesman in the possession of no less than £lO,OOO received a bribe of £6O. It was proved that a captain in the Cumberland Militia was bribed, that persons of all ranks and stations of society received bribes. Why then are we to select and pick out the poor and the needy. Sir, if I could make any distinction I would make the distinction in favour of the poor man who had been seduced in that case, and I will only remind the committee of that case which Mr. Atkinson stated of a poor man who at first steadfastly refused a bribe, saying that he had promised to vote for a particular candidate, and he refused that bribe till his wife and his children implored him for their sakes to take it. Mr. Atkinson detailed the statement with the most unblushing effrontery, and shewed feelings which I am sure the poor victim of his seduction never experienced, and I declare be fore Go'd that I would ten thousand times sooner have been the person who accepted that bribe than the person who offered it. Sir, in the election of 1827, and at all the mayors' elections, I beg the committee to remember that the gentlemen then pro posed as candidates for mayor never interfered in any way in that election of 1827. It is distinctly proved that Mr. Porter was too ill to leave his house, and that Mr. Wright represented him throughout the whole of that election. Sir, Mr. Porter certainly has incurred a great deal of odium throagh the case, but I must say, that from the evidence which has been produced be fore this committee it would seem to me rather to have been the indiscretion and the folly of over zealous friends, than the com mission of any premeditated and wilful corruption. Sir, the next election to which I would refer is Mr. Brancker's election. That election was in 1830. Mr. Ewart's election and canvass was at that time going on. The candidates were both in the town. The active person for Mr. Brancker was the chairman of Mr. Ewart's committee. It appears that there were certain sums of 6s. and no more, paid to individuals upon that occasion. My honourable friend I believe misunderstood it and thought it amounted to £3 to several individuals, but the witness set that right and said that it was divided among the men. The first impression upon my mind from his evidence had been that the trap door was made for the purpose of clandestivity, but it is clear that it was with no such view whatever, but that it was all done openly. Now lam ready to admit that clandestivity is generally an evidence of guilt, but in this case there was no clandestivity, it was done at the witnesses' own suggestion in order to prevent any of those persons coming who had not voted. But above all there is no proof of any previous promise, and according to the cases I have cited before, unless there is a previous promise the payment of money after an election does not vitiate it. Sir, Mr. Knipe, who, this committee will recollect, throughout his evidence spoke in the most unguarded manner, and spoke quite at hap-hazard, fixed' the amount of the expenses of this election at £5OO. Mr. Russell and Mr. Ashburner, one of whom paid the money and the other audited the accounts, proved that the sum total of the expense was only £320. There is another striking circumstance in the evidence. It appears that Mr. Knipe's bill was disallowed upon that occasion, and perhaps his evidence in that box may be a little accounted for by the cir cumstance.. Sir, I come then to the elections before 1830. Now I am clearly entitled to take it that every election but the elections of 1823 and 1826 is perfectly unattached. Mr. RoscoE. We have proved a regular practice for eight or ten years. Mr. 14 ICBM,. You have done nothing of the sort; and besides, that general sort of evidence would not do. There is no witness that speaks to any corruption in any election previous to 1827. In 1823 the sum total of the charge is that it was a phantom election. The witnesses were asked what they meant by a phantom election, and they said it was an election where a man was proposed by the freemen for the sake of getting money and drink. Now I ask whether the committee believe that Lord Molyneux was proposed as a phantom in that election, when he was proposed by my honourable friend Mr. Rushton and se conded by Mr. Mather, whose evidence I am sure upon a former occasion the committee will well remember, and who gave, I must say, his evidence in the case with the most perfect honesty. Mr. MOTHER. I was not a burgess of Liverpool. Mr. Nicnol.. But it was a Mr. Mather, and 1 believe a rela tion of this Mr. Mather. Mr. Harvey was a party also engaged in that election, and many of his relations, and therefore I con ceive that they will not attempt to say that that was a phantom election, in the sense in which that term was used by Mr. Haselden or Mr. Robinson, namely, that a person was proposed Merely for the purpose of getting money or drink. My honour aLle friend, I believe, admits that it was done rather with the view suggested by the other side, that it was a peg to hang a speech upon. But Mr. Foster and Mr. Wright have proved the origin of this term. In 1816 Mr. Leyland was proposed without appearing on the hustings, and Mr. Canning said he should be glad to have flesh and blood before him. He said " stat a no minis umbra," but there is no gentleman I believe acquainted with Liverpool who will say that that was a phantom election in the sense of an attempt to get money or drink. But, be that as it may, whatever may be the meaning of that term, they have entirely failed in showing . that any money or drink was given upon • one of those occasions ; and, therefore, it is of no use to say what they understood by phantom elections, unless they show that there was a foundation for that appella• tion for them. Now, the next election I shall come to is the election of 1829, in which Sir George Drinkwater was a candi date. Mr. Knipe says t hat paupers got ss. and a dinner. Now, it is clear that the paupers had a right to exercise their fran chise. They went up to vote, and I conceive that the friends , of Sir G eorge D r i n k wa t e r did, as is very common with sheriffs, and so on to the debtors in gaols, or to poor persons,; they gave them a dinner and something to drink. But Knipe says again, that it cost five hundred pounds; now, Russell, the auditor of these accounts, proves that it was two hundred pounds. Mr. Ashbur ner , another witness, not the one I alluded to before, said that h e canvassed two districts, and that in neither of those districts was money or drink given. After the close of the elec tion he said seven pounds or eight pounds was paid for scores, but there was no proof of any previous promise. Sir, I omitt e d the election of 1826. The mere charge against that is that it was a phantom election, but there is no proof that money or drink was given, and they have not proved that the opposition in that case was set up by persons at Liverpool. They might be in a humble situation of life, but I have yet to learn that persons in a humble situation may not propose a can didate, for I have always understood that the right exists among the lowest electors of proposing any candidate they choose; but, upon that occasion, it was proved that Mr. Huskisson was opposed upon the ground that he was a friend to free trade, and a popular prejudice or prepossession prevailed at that time, that the consequence of the.free trade system would be to carry the repairs of ships to the other side of the Atlantic, and the poor shipwrights were naturally very much annoyed with those mea sures. I will now come to the elections subsequent to 1830. It was originally said and attempted to be shown, that those elections were tainted with corruption and bribery, but that ground was ahandoned, and in the course of yesterday's cross-examination, and the whole of the latter part of the case, the attempt has been not to show that impurity existed, but that the purity was the result solely of the fear and dread of punishment. Now, I must say that was a most desperate manoeuvre for the other side, because, by undertaking to show that the motive for the purity was only the dread of punishment, they admit clearly that the purity of those elections could not be attached. Sir, the question is, then, not whether thosc• elections were pure, but whether they have shown that the purity of those elec tions proceeded from the dread of punishment? The question is, whether they have shown the true and real motives of the conduct of those men upon those occasions ? Now, I take it to be a clear and indisputable position in law, that when a con duct can be accounted for by two motives, the one purity, the other impurity, the oue innocent, and the other guilty, you are bound, in the absence of direct proof of a guilty motive, to at tribute it to honest and innocent motives. The law of Eng land, in every case, presumes a man innocent till he is provel to be guilty. It is not till he is surmised, or till he is suspected to be guilty, but till it is proved by positive evidence that he was guilty. I say that in looking at the evidence-you will find in no part of it any trace that the motive that induced the men to act purely was merely terror and dread of punishment. Sir, the first election was the election in Mav, 1831, and was a general election. Now, I have proved that Mr. :.'wart's ex penses in that election were £1405 ; that no part of that was expended in the way of corruption. Mr. Denison's ex penses I do not know what they were, but there was no fund. All his influential friends were unwilling that he should be put forward, and so bankrupt were they in credit, that at last a few independent electors subscribed twenty-three pounds to get up a band. Going with that band through the town without any personal canvass,—without any previous application,—without Mr. Denison being present at all,—without any money being paid—Mr. Denison was elected by a triumphant majority. Where, then, i s th e t race a t th a t e l ect i on o f any corruption securing the election. General Gascoyne, it is admitted, paid no money. But it is said, m " Oh, but :General Gascoyne lost the election because he paid no one ." Sir, this is mere surmise, conjec ture, and assumption. ' lye facts all bear directly in the con trary direction. General Gascoyne came into the town some days before. He had just proposed that resolution in the House of Commons respecting. the reduction in the number of the members of the House of Commons, the majority upon which was the cause of the dissolution of Parliament, and the cause of that election taking place, to ascertain the opinion of the country generally upon the question of reform. General Gas coyne, upon going into the town, was received with hootings and hisses. He went, accompanied by the mayor, to church upon the Sunday; he was again received with hootings and hisses, and upon his return from church on that day, in the lan guage of the witness, he was treated in the most ferocious man ner. Sir, it is proved further that during that election there were riots in the town ; riots not got up by the electors, but by the Irish, and by casual residents in the town; that so much was the freedom of election destroyed at that time, that the person that represented Geuerai Gascovne upon the hustings, at that time, thought it right for the safety of the town to put a stop to the poll; but not till Ewart and benison had got a large ma jority. Mr. Knipe says that no money or drink was given by General Gascoyne upon that occasion. In that he is completely and entirely confirmed by every witness ; but he says a great deal of money was spent upon the other side, and that at the corner of every s t ree t th e p u bli c -h ouses were kept open. Now, if ever there was a distinct, Complete, entire falsehood; it is that assertion. 'Every witness has said that it was the most pure election possible, and that if any witness has said that the pub lic-houses were kept open at the corner of every street, he has asserted that which is directly false. Now, sir, further than this no other witness was produced to attack that election, and no other witness has attacked it; and yet I find Mr. Rathbone himself, the apostle of purity ; Mr. Rathbone, who has at all times denounced bribery at an elec tion, in every shape, was so pleased with the conduct of these men at this election, returning two decided - reformers, and re jecting their old, their long-tned and their faithful, though, I am sorry to say, their Tory representative—Mr. Rathbone was so pleased at the victory of his party, that he said that the free men had for ever nobly redeemed their character; and he was supported by that patriot of the Liverpool Mercury, Mr. Egerton Smith, who _pronounced that the town of Liverpool was bound to petition Parliament against the disfranchisement bill, be cause the men had so nobly conducted themselves upon this occasion. Then, sir, I stand in this position, that after the general elec tion of 1831, by the testimony of those who are now desirous to disfranchise the freemen, the freemen of Liverpool did not de serve disfranchisement. 1 do not stand only on Mr. Rathbone's testimony upon that occasion, but I stand upon the testimony produced in this box, and I call upon you, looking . at the evi dence as to the case, to say whether there was any impurity in that elect on. Then, sir, it comes to this, that it was established that at that time they had not done anything that deserved dis franchisement; and Mr. Rathbone himself must have known all that they had done at that time, because the presentment of the grand jury, in 1827, had taken place ; the report of the com mittee of the House of Commons, in the election of 18.30, had also been published, and therefore Mr. Rathbone knew all the previous sins of the freemen • and Mr. Rathbone, with this com plete knowledge, says that die freemen are totally undeserving of disfranchisement. Then, sir, if it rests there, it is for the other side to show that they have done anything since to render them liable to disfranchisement. It is for him to show that sub sequent elections have been so tainted with corruption that the men forfeited that noble redemption of their character to which Mr. Rathbone alluded. Now, sir, I am sorry to say that I cannot take Mr. Rath bone's assertions for this. I must look at the evidence; and therefore I will go to the next election, the mayor's election in 1831; Mr. Sandbach's election, which was also said to be a phantom election. It turns out that so far from it being a phan tom election, the poll lasted from ten in the morning till eleven at night; and. that Mr. Currie, the opponent of Mr. Sandbach, was proposed by Mr. Francis Jordan and Captain Colquitt. Therefore that has no pretence to be called a phantom election. Sir, I believe the only evidence as to that election is an offer of money by Mr. T. B. Horsfall to Mr. Ashburner. Mr. Ash burner said that Mr. Horsfall offered him some money, and that he declined it. His evidence was very loose upon many points; and Mr. T. B. Horsfall says positively that the only sum of money he offered Mr. Ashburner was the sum of twenty shillings for coach hire, for bringing the burgesses up; and the whole expenses of the election were proved to be under two hundred pounds. There was no money given for treating or drink, and that is confirmed by Mr. Tomkinson and many other witnesses. _ _ Now I will only remind Mr. Rathbone of a little inconsis tency on his part. Mr. Rathbone has declared again and again the guilt of the election of 1830. From whom did that guilt proceed? Was it from General Gascoyne ? No; it was from Mr. Ewart and Mr. Denison. Mr. Rathbone.was arsubs6riber' to Mr. Ewart's expenses.. I do not care what the amount of his subscription might have beep. It might be ten or twenty pounds; but it was adopting and recognising as candidate a man whose election had been declared void upon the ground of bribery and corruption. Therefore I do say there is the grossest inconsistency in the conduct of Mr. Rathbone at that time, and that Mr. Rathbone had forgotten all his natural antipathies against . corruption in that case ; and, in the warmth of his poli tical feelings, forgotten this pure doctrine which he had before held. But, sir, let us hear no more of this nonsensical talking and affectation about purity. The fact is, and it is clearly proved by that subscription of Mr. Rathbone's to the election of Mr. gwart, that Mr. Rathbone only approves of those proceedings that give predominance to that party whose political tenets he has espoused, aim that the whole of his proceedings are directed to that object. . . Sir, let not Mr. Harvey either talk of purity ; he is one of the petitioners, but his hand is yet tainted by the payment of £lBOO in the election of 1830, though he may now say that he has done penance, and though he may now call himself a re pentant sinner. But let him extend the same degree of forgiveness to those other persons who are the victims of his seduction. The crime, as it is suggested to me, is not because they returned Mr. Ewart in 1830 bribed, but because in 1831 they returned Lord Sandon unhribed. I now come to the election of Lord Sandon and Mr. Thornely, and the committee will remember that at the election the mania for reform had in some degree subsided; Lord Sandon was canvassing the town seven weeks previous to the election, and anyone who has ever witnessed the amiable, engaging, and unpresuming manners of that nobleman, will not be surprised at his winning the hearts and the affections of that constituency. CHAIRMAN.—And a reformer also Mr. NICHOL.—And a reformer also, to a certain extent. Sir, it must be remembered that they are the principal gen tlemen in the town ; at that time they are those who employed the greatest number of mechanics and artizans in the town. Therefore, those persons found that all the gentlemen to whom they had been accustomed, upon former occasions, to look up with respect and affection, espoused upon that occasion Lord Sandon's interest. The only evidence to affect this election in any way is the evidence of a bookseller; I think Mr. Taylor, who said the men asked for bribes in that election, as they did in the former election. Mr. Taylor, it will be remembered, received a very just and well-merited reproof from one of the committee for the flippant manner in which he gave his evidence respecting the subscription to the former proceedings. Mr. Isaac Holmes also said, that several men asked for money; and Mr. Haselden said, that though he did not canvass, the canvassers told him that they would not come for Mr. Thornely without money, therefore Mr. Thornely was withdrawn. Now sir, what does this amount to, supposing- the story is perfectly correct and consistent, which I a little doubt. Ido not mean to impute that Mr. Haselden did' not hear which of the canvassers stated that, but I doubt whether the canvassers had any ground for stating that. But supposing that it is true that they would not come up without bribes for Mr. Thornely at that time, it only proved that the influence of Mi. Thornely and his party in Liverpool is all nothing, because it is proved that the freemen were proceedingto poll fairly and independently for Lord San don. If it is untrue, cadet questio, there is no attack upon the purity of the election. And really my honourable friends have, I think, in their desire to attack the corporation, a little for gotten what is due to Mr. Thornely and to his party. I think they have shown that Mr. Thornely's party exercises no influ ence in Liverpool. I believe that in no way arises from Mr. Thornely's personal character, but the fact is, that Mr. Thornely is one of those American merchants who, as we have heard, are not quite so popular with the artizans as the West Indian and the other interest. But, Sir, the committee will remember the evidence of Mr. Grant, one of Lord Sandon's committee. The demeanor and manners of that gentleman in the box must have insured to him the most entire confidence, and the most implicit reliance. He stated positively that the expenditure on behalf of Lord Sandon upon that occasion was £1403; and he stated that no part of that sum was in any way expended in bribery and cor ruption. I need not call on the committee to look to the evi dence of any single witness in confirmation of Mr. Grant. I am sure that his evidence, standing alone, has decided the purity of that election. I beg the committee to read the account he put in of the expenses of that election. The next election is the election of Mayor iu 1832, and no attack whateve r ha s been made upon that election. Mr. Dobson, the treasurer of the committee, was produced • he proves that the expenditur e W a s under two hundred pounds, and that no money whatever was expended in bribery or corruption. Sir, these I believe are the principal witnesses in this case; the other witnessess that we have produced, most respectable persons, all confirm this, and establish beyond doubt that there has been no bribery or corruption whatever, in any way, since one thousand eight hundred and thirty. In one thousand eight hundred ana thirty, as I have said, the guilt was not con fined to the lower orders ; it spread far and wide, and the com mittee will recollect that at that election there was no differ ence of political teeing scarcely ; there might be a shade, but it was a mere shade, between Mr. Ewart and Mr. Denison, at that time, however widely they may have separated since. But knowing both these gentlemen at tile time, loan state that their political principles at that time were very nearly, if not completely identical. Then, Sir. it is in evidences that at the commencement of that election the principal gentlemen of the town did not interfere. The poor freemen had not the advice or the power of consulting and talking with those with whom they had been in the habit of consulting; they had no great landmarks of political feelings to guide them • they had no per sonalprepossessions more than that Mr. Ewaremay be connected with the town of Liverpool; but his family is not so by residence, nor is Mr. Denison : they are both elually strangers to the town of LiYerpool, and the Freemen being without any landmark, without any polar star to guide them, under these difficult cir cumstances a system of corruption and bribery, probably un premeditated on all sides, commenced, and I am free to admit that it spread to a most melancholy extent. Sir, if punishment had followed immediately upon that offence, few I think would have ventured to have denied the justice of the punishment; few would have ventured tQ have said that the freemen and all the parties, the bribers as well as the briheA ought not to have been unpunished. But, sir, if that punishment had followed, n o d o ubt`th e distinction would have, been made between the innocent and the gu ilt y — no doubt the innocent would have been allowed to retain their rights, and in the exer cise of those rights other parties would have been mixed. Sir, remember that those who were innocent in that election were not merely ordinarily innocent, but that they resisted a tai spreading and a very powerful temptation. They, therefore, are entitled to peculiar consideration. Sir, the course which I have said would be pursued is the course which has been pursued in every single bill of dis franchisement which has hitherto been passed. In Shoreham . the guilty were disfranchised by name, the same ri g ht was re tained, and hundreds were added i n . Such was the case also in Cricklade; the same in Aylesbury; the same in East Retford. Grampound is an exception —the whole borough of Grampound was disfranchised—and why? Because among the whole of them every single individual but one was proved to have been guilty. Then, sir, the principle has been hitherto that you are to disfranchise the guilty by name, except when that guilt ab sorbs so large a proportion that it really amounts in fact to universality. ' Sir, if the . principles of those eases had been followed in the present instance what would have been tha course? Those who would have been proved to have been uuilty would have been disfranchis e d, th e i nnocent would havo, been retained. But it is absurd to say that the legislature would have contemplated the disfranchisement of the town of Liverpool, and that they would ever with such a large popula tion have looked to the adjoining hundreds. Sir, it has worked that change by itself. The reform bill has passed, and by the reform bill and by the lapse of time every thing has been done which would have been the object of any act of the legislature to have done. Sir, it is proved that a large proportion of those who were guilty have been excluded from the register either by death or by nonresidence, or by other circumstances, and that the whole number remaining in the register of those who were guilty, I think, are 1880. Besides that, there are a great number of those who are householders, and who exercise their franchise in another right; there are remaining 1300 who were guilty ; but is there any evidence that any one of those persons h :i d been guilty since? The table we hltve put in proves that 1876 com pletely innocent freemen will be disfranchised and loose their right altogether. There are, besides those, 193 who had not taken out their freedom in 1830, and others, makingin the whole above 5000, who will be completely sacrificed for the guilt of 1800 persons, proved to have been guilty in 1830, and proved by their subsequent conduct to have redeemed the offence of which they were then guilty. Sir, I do not press upon the committee to spare this consti tuency if five, or if peradventure ten, or if peradventure fifty righteous men be found ; but I call upon them to spare it be cause any measure disfranchising the freemen generally will involve a very much larger number of innocent persons than the participators in the guilt. Sir, the resu lt s h ow n by the table is monstrous and absurd in its consequences, and such that it is impossible that the committee can ever recommend the disfranchisement of the freemen. The great mass of those freemen have,- since the election, shown a determination to refrain from their evil courses; they have shown a determina tion to redeem their own character, and the character of that great town, the second commercial city, I believe, in the world. They have shown that determination by a total and entire ab stinence from corruption ever since 1830. We have shown that the reform bill, by infusing into the veins of the consti tuency a large portion of new blood, has corrected the impurity of the old circulation • and we have shown that the r e form bill has already effected that which it has been the object in all former times to effect by an act of the legislature. I call, then, upon the committee not only in the name of mercy, but in the name of justice, to give these freemen a fair. trial. If they per sist in the honest and manly course which they have pursued since 1830, you will have no ground to regret that you have extended this mercy to them. If, on the other hand, they again relapse, I then say that the vengeance of an indignant and nsulted country will fall with just severity upon their guilt. SECOND EDITION. Standard Office, Three o'clock. The American packet Napoleon, Captain Smith, from New York, arrived here this morning. She brings a file of New York papers reaching to the 9th instant, but they do not contain any political news worth extracting. The cholera had nearly disappeared at New Orleans. — The following is the latest from that quarter :—" The New Orleans Bulletin of the 22d ult. asserts, without reserve, that the cholera at that place, is extinct. This good news is confirmed by letters, which state that business was progressing as usual." From the New Orleans Courier of the 14th June, we learn that the cholera is making dreadful ravages at Tampico. It says : "A letter of the 7th states that in the fourteen days previous to the 6th, there had been six hundred deaths by Cholera, and that on the lith the deaths amounted to a hundred and thirty. The fatality is greater in proportion to the population than has been experienced in any other considerable town within our knowledge. Tampico is estimated to contain about three thousand souls. By some there are said to be between 4000 and 5000. On the Bth, the day before the Emperor sailed, there were said to have been a hundred and eighty-three deaths. "We understand, says the paper above mentioned, that the disease was chiefly confined to the lower classes, and but one foreign merchant had died of it. The American Consul, Mr. Robinson, was perfectly well at the date of the last accounts. "A French bark, name not mentioned, lost every person belonging to her, except one man." We have also Canada papers to the 29th June, but they are without interest. The Paris letters express some apprehension of dis turbances during the three days.. IRELAND.—HORRID ASSASSINATION. The following is the extract of a letter just received front Dublin:— " Dublin, 29th July, 3 p. M. " I open this to let you hear the most atrocious act I ever heard of, Mr. Sneed, of the house of Sneyd, French and Barton, was deliberately shot through the head a few minutes ago while walking near the bank. After Mr. Sneyd fell, the ruffian came up again and discharged the contents of a second pistol into the middle of his forehead. One satisfaction is, the murderer was secured." Mr. Sneyd was of the first respectability, both as to fortnne, character, and connections. He had long been a very eminent wine merchant, and served for many years as representative for the county of Caven on conservative principles. We understand that a public meeting of the burgesses and their friends will take place at the Golden Lion, on Thursday next, at twelve o'clock, to express their grate ful sense of the valuable services of John Nichol, Esq., M. P., during the recent investigation before the Com mittee of the House of Commons. CORN EXCHANGE. TUESDAY, TWO O'CLOCK To-day we have had a flat market and no speculative business doing in consequence of a continuance of the finest weather for the crops. The sales of wheat were inconsiderable and at a decline of Id in prices of the best samples, and of 2d to 3d in other descriptions.— Prime Oats which were scarce and to which the demand was exclusively confined supported last week's quotations, but good and middling kiuds were offered at a reduction without finding buyers. Oatmeal ,is 6d cheaper, and Irish flour Id and both dull. Other articles no alteration in prices or demand. COTTON MARKET. TUESDAY, 2 o'CLoßK.—Our Cotton Market continues very firm, without any extensive demand; the sales, to day, will probably amount to 2,000 bags, of which 200 are Maranham at 12d., and 50 Pernam at IW. per lb. A few hundreds American are taken on speculation. The New York Packet has arrived, bringing advices to the Bth instant, corroborating in strong terms the,pre vions advices, as to short supplies, which will most pro bably cause further buying on speculation. Passengers in the Napoleon, from New York:—Messrs Sands, Grimshaw, Jones, Brooks, Tayleure and Lady, Brown ditto, Clapham, Hughs, Hutchinson, Dr. Tuckerman, Messrs. Phillips and Son, Smith, Lazarus and Lady. Miss Isaacs, Os berv, Mr. and Miss Malcomson, Messrs. Mill, 113ilis, Walker, Richards, and some others; in all 38. SHIPPING INTEL L !CENCI?. Wind E.S.E.—Fair. Napoleon, Smith, from New York, off this port. Caledonia, Graham ; Marengo, Welch ; and Rhode Island, Man chister, hence, at New York, Bth inst. Swallow, Edwards, from Carnarvon, at New York. Active, Hicks, from Bristol, at do. Russia, Cook, hence, at do. Rockers, Smith, hence, at Philadelphia. Sarah Shcafe, (late Smith) from Mobile, at New York, 2d instant. and sailed for this port on the 7th. Colossus, -, hence for Philadelphia, was spoken 20th June, in lat. 41 30, long. 68. Majestic, - hence for New Orleans, was spoken 29th June, in lat. 25 30. long. 7 465, Mary, Wells, hence, at Montreal. Endeavour. Collinson, and New Felix Souligny, Poinchaud, cleared at Montreal for this port 24th June. SAILED. Montagu, Turnbull, for Pernambuco. Rival, M'Kenzie, Quebec. Manchester, Dixon, Newfoundland. TELEGRAPH OFFICE. rt% JULY. No communication in consequence of thick fog. STATE of TRADE IN LANCASIIIIE.--The Silk weaving in the towns eight or ten miles round Maucbester is become rather brisker; the large manufacturers are very brisk: plain sarsuets are much in demand, and are likely to continue so through ilia winter, as the stock of this description of goods is understood to be small. Cotton weaving is not so brisk ; this may be ac counted for by the advancing prices of the raw material. The factories at tarp and Heywood, and the mills belonging to Messrs. Fielden, of Todmotden, arc working short time; seve ral others in that neighbourhood are doing the Same: at Old. ham and Hoyton the mills are working full time.--.cii‘q4e4p.r Courior.