The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-04-26 00:00:00

7—therefore abandoned in 1828, and not reaest'd close of 1829, when the new light was discovered' rio pin repeat, that I believe the revenue was the 15ac i f il traziliensis next attempts to excite public feeliegit, r, by bringing forward t'ae present deranged Si tli , li ) idon Sugar Refiners. He tells us, that at this sti l e e were 216 pans at work there, and now onlY 61 ', e ll gned no reason for this change, although he I ' s- oduced the cause for another object. This y ear the ' 0 of sugar is open to the refiners that they had a ec t e be , last, at prices under those they then paid' nor bor it that period permitted to use foreign sugar --he' p t 0 iction from 216 to 61 pans to be explained, s eP o 'f °s t i i o to be correctly stated ? I believe the c ali .,, se ;fib l l injurious change (for it is not less so to the o r " h - 0 1 1 to the British Refiner,) is one with which Br a e, permit us to grapple by similar means. France'oll er home beet root sugar manufacture of ab ec t e, o o wally, imports more sugar from her colonies 0 "" jil es, but she does not, as Braziliensis requires ° f ti ,, ters unprotected to struggle against the foreiglwet last year she has paid a bounty equal to 15s. Pe r ti ortation of her refined sugars, whilst on °lllsl pl 'ding all the restrictions in labour, and heavy a e d es to which our planters are subjected by e+ he i nt o which are unknown in the foreign colooiesi"- • nominal bounty received is under 25., and tet)? fined by the admission of the molasses is for t",, 1 •! Under such disadvantages, it is impossible e'ro maintain competition in the foreign market, tbile.e :11 is, therefore, at present in the hands of f r3 ,l ' alone I believe is to be attributed the distressert refining trade for export, in which the Bri tish sly participates. „ 4 ?O s now come to the strangling case, which or ee-12 ump h, but he may, probably, soon disco ver that et, is vanity," if not " vexation of spirit;'' h e A rau g s tiit e aware, that such productions of the U nite ; 0 ° orted and admitted for consumption he re ' s ,., ch th e &c., are also admitted on the same term s fro •,,, g carried on the same conditions in the shirr l' o t 'try under the reciprocal system. But do ' le ; l ib° it the sugar . of New Orleans as well as that 0 ' 0 for the same reason, that we have enough afeuutitlll it the case with the other articles brought f re- ,, to es or the Brazils, and we are, therefore, °P e " , l from all countries. I ask, th e n, where is tit h e ili o Yen our trade with the Brazils and that svit'iteto es ? and may it not have turned out, that by ; e too much, Braziliensis has strangled hillisi! , a ' ee l e next professes to lament the want of criarl°/ rr y ships in the Brazil trade, and that foreigner s ea teo fie produce shipped for British account. ' - 14 10° 170 British ships sail annually to the Br at e t I t lug manufactures, averaging, probably', aw- t he lug two voyages each in the year, r eale ° 0 5 illy employed to 30 or 35—and that the Ord a are of little comparative importance! ht t til s happen, that, on the average of the la s , - to . ;00 bales have been annually imported le the Brazils, which, at 1500 bale s for a , t' loaded above 100 ships, or 30 to 4 0 m ore rh3 be el' oaded outwards! Where then has this exec eon oll' they not either have gone from this or sonlea il, nballast ? But my supposing so is perhar s o 0 0 unfortunate ignorance of mercantile raatter lieitsis is so fond of charging me. at t foreigners are to be found loading 000 ter numbers than British ships, (probablY old ,isbon,) and they go there in ballast. il : i t i event British ships doing the same, if s ° --.).(1'6( i they nut do so, if they did not find m ote r i l ; e o ment elsewhere than carrying sugar and c o oo r, li, or even to Liverpool, at 2s. 6d. or 3s. P et . n . f y last letter, that foreigners were s ubjec t 1. be lia ie a same charges that British ships were. , e' )t ,! oted by Braziliensis, to prove the contra* -. e , rt Leir own port, more than British a re in 1j ,•::,5 %( ,' is and Swedes, the ships found chiefly at 1: 33 ' . 1 ,04 ' th. Another of his arguments is, that O are d ‘' t on his principles, and imports her sugar and bed.' ever she can buy.it best and cheapest, a rt el' iould not do the same? My answer is olivi e° „ h th e o colonies to protect. e are then told that those connected W''''- "' i) 'liie ~ ,li e advocate he assumesio - be - sytaP ath " bad' Lns in their present state of difficulty , alt . se st* t t , were they to be adopted, would increa r back these feelings with contempt. IS h A e 13 0 ° :, .Le e a le s n ures about to be adopted here to pu t -° O' ies, must, if in any degree consisteotof 00 Lnce so as to exclude all produce the fru ° 0 ,,' t ile intermenable foreign slavery, such as th al -I iC eI A 3er these fruits be sugar, colee or ot t°l3 ,' o r ti ly 0. It is then no matter for surprise that II a b e d , .e success of the measures he advocates. ',,, fli if he can seriously expect that the 6:10,001 Mature, or people of this country, vc ill ° O il the fruits of foreign slave labour, a , fter they .1 ished it in our own colonies After it regards the Slave Trade to the Brazils.---ig el 3 ',, :el, Braziliensis must know, that several vcs' e ' All' i , Thee captured on that coast by British cruizr'ear,i animus is there; that it has not bee l) ? o r i' l ,,, to be from either the want of induccoeil; pre Lase, the Brazilian Sugar Planters lacilig i'• - i .0116, y depressed state. r x ;e t n o tu r ries past it has been the invariable fos t ; • ive and protect the productii°ther'. ) 3 os e s r e e s o s:* o ons, in common with those of th e ' ° of Il j f to . Foreign States, and the caus e d % s ce , must, I think, be obvious all hose 0 141 4 J, i to w . e,;o 01 , - e t o I.—This principle has been approved° ' c od ) 0 0 by the ablest and wisest statesmen o ur hee l ti I. It has, also, up to the it titne , " o t°' . le e d by u the leading governmenPtrseosfeithe Contioecelo 1 nited States, and even by al ° be rl ' America. Thus fortified, it se an d t° a O ro ti that we should now be called °P °ll „ a i l' ' , f i lk i up or abandon those old established svicesrdo Ile ry has drawn so much of its strength, oirilmii manufactures, because certain loreigners rebgeol I of factures, and willing to Pay for t he their countries, employing some 1311,11.4hi,f4 !h u s s hips would, through these age llts °3 0 111P14 do so, and w h o might then qi lsl. - ,,e ° fter a t n o d break up the connection! I ttlof the cajoled by such theories, or the ne w 11. . 94 1eac to the full enjoyment of them I shall ndsv onclude with being, your's, &c.► DiS SC' it 19th, 1833. -------------- 0 Sr lY : 0 THE EDITOR OF THE I,II7ERP°-'6 111'111 ,Absence from town has prevented n ie r; , 0 i f •cod be cv observations of the editor of the %'ei A s t oe ' I observe_ that he has joined the Aibk°oo 0,0 NVheatley, and that he gives fear 3.5 k fil tif i li declining a voyage to Jamaica a nd l'a c- .,' tli tit to frank him. It would appear, thereibi' ettd.ll/er $f ri tame and reputation) he is not a "shooting star," but, like It w i ,„ ~,‘, cur Y—fixed. 148 ~)crconvenient for the Mercury to quote the two ques tire4 put to Mr. Wheatley , nor my expression of abhor test whichthe eri ke . • committed. tlll tle'!th satd by him to have been . .• e 'est /„I at would have shown the possibility of a whit To i..s an being possessed of humanity ! ! iaM 4l l, gtatuit"us assertion, that I am an advocate for slavery, 'l t% f ut °lle tePlY;—rny whole life gives the lie to 1 , it I io:,,e a ct. , Now to the point ar; m t s iu' e rl Il e r iai l w 7:acr the statement of cruelty, copied in the Albion from Mr. b t 'ri l :ttelnac:te:tennZtesoof of truth, il_ll4aPillet, is true, or it is false ;—if true, I call upon .t the w ith th t e_ the persons !sent" deolornitted the outrage—of the estate—the t f h a , e j ts u , stice, and humanity, to 11(1. th ate, g ce. 4- en. rolyl, island t, your office or direct to Mr. Barge, the se duty esc. Let these documents be furnished ivi•-•.---Or, better still, to Mr. Secretary Stanley, who 4 be t 0 hilt y, . e tlecessary inquiry hare th • • instituted , and the man, kg Punished. .er. w h Sta n i e eatleY must know, as well as I do, that the very name an d tits s general, ole,,lvY . s i a guarantee that the duty will be done justlyAlajesty's sir tl „ le must know that Lord Molyneux,. his 'k4lll I calland the chief justice of Jamaica, will do proofs, is rit doeu, 4 the „74t"Y 01,, erve 8e criustice and humanity will thus be proofs; his person will not be endangered, satisfied. tor, that the ' no stated , . t ' si r, I have t either in this or my former I 4 ' 4 bee o my judg act of cruelty, as mentioned by Mr . Wheatley, !at, uo ,„ , l)orpetrated. I merely wish to suspend ti ~..,,."1 1. he the defenc e of the accused. .1 ask . the Bri , l '" 11 c to d i , it, ,ogilats e ti , " ii v 4 . " thew s sam e . the exclusive possession of philanthr f op e i l. - "'e same. I ask even those who in this country e t, 4' ri ' . : l o the saroe. I ask them does it show a manlye 1 / 4 t if A t ; I „ f „ eeli ng, a Christian feeling, to condemn unheard? cy, after the very '-r * ', h eatl , serious charge which he does not that he has them wii ',eel, Will it be unfair to fade,d erato i e43.Trie forward with infer proofs, and promptly eller, . 1 he not stand forth to the world a self-convicted i . r, i t is unpleasant , It nlaY not I ) • and embarrassing I do not possess lav e _ c;m and to inform you, that nor do 6 ,44. dojo: thiee acres of land in all the West Indies;la lands, or to speak of myself; N e ,. , ec tlY or indirectly, mortgages on houses, of s ow. that I a 4 rnake thisndirectly, observation simply with the view h Preve ut 'n itn te 4111 unprejudiced observer, actuated onlybybeing a .de lq 4„„,, Day fellow -subjects in Great Brita k i God, I can 11, 41 : 4 " 4 , and those in Jamaica (where, than 411 ed ljthfrietidS, white, brown, and black) frombeing , tpol ocris _c'ut judg e er jury. ‘,"° you for the length of this letter, and am, con x ours, & c. ......._— A WHITE JAMAICAAN. ____........,,............• Iltfl'ElLiAmEN T. ) 11 11, , 4 ()US p , D T .--------- „ ...„, ...r, 1,, .t.„,ari , 4 tftc t. Ottuo-..- W EDNESDA T. Warri ili'haftesbury taking his seat, Oed gate. ugton an d Bilminehifm railway bill was read a ;1?t, bake f l 4 i t , le n of co ° l -;.lltland presented petitions, praying for the sy;„ , 1 80 a eilla4 slavery, from various places in Leicester si 4 ,5, th e h petition from Sheepshead, in the same county, Th ' laet uri e ube to pass some measures for the better regula-_ , ft: P•arf o r c :,, tty: (4314er,,4 '')."aftesbury presented petitions, praying for the or it Ile e of the Sabbath, and abolition of negro sla- Sl i ce noqi .leld Kkegsri At e ext. Presented fifty-one petitions for the total and fo r t ,, Inchon of slavery. Also a petition from Truro, 1 k i .. th e luor re moval of the disabilities of the Jews. "t tli re l°ll of Lord Sutfield, the house then adjourned till o'eloek to-morrow. Th e i s li(ru st , q, i u gells e w . 'OP COMMONS—WEDNESDAY. litihs,Nißers.tB nOt opened until a quarter past four o'clock to iltii the reVlenee of the ballet lo try the merits of a petition 6 _ 4 1, 1 . 4. Y, h uv ,n for W eymouth, which was postponed from fkv o t eed ed w d ig been fixed enders take place. lt was, howev . er, :o :likshire:fopri t .e t t il she , eu a at n eb d tl i ai t t itvastood to have been with kler " e bloti ' 4 lr, Orks 41 elf Mr. Buller, the amendments to the Exeter tikd woope Were read a second' time 1 4 4 11 t, p on eti o 't t io s n lav f e ro ry m . ' Penstanton, in Hun 'N, to cast n or b i.P: MALLOW ELECTION. , i l r Y th e r ° l lght up the report of the committee appoint le (Isiein merits of the petition against the return of 1. 4 t ttl,elittee ? a unt, Esq. for the borough of Mallow; and '4ef,' reported that ' Mr. Daunt was nut duly elected, tat t t , that 4,e3 that Orlando Jephson, Esq., was duly itto ui 7 eleeti"le petition was not frivolous or vexatious, but il,ie`tee hadll ti t . Mr. Daunt had been vexatious; and that the I h o,l',eve altered the state of the 01l by striking off the l ilrp e ( Ark 411 Per who were not P entitled to vote. I, e ly, l e °f th e e re s4oni 1 , ord er + wn was ordered to attend the house to , - Ale iN '° a mend the return. i'a e %e ry, 1 GloN presented petitions for the entire abolition ootioet‘ 4aorthe.oCreat Torrington, Langton, Soirtik u M vt o v. lt a o r n . , • P tle il v e .,,, , S a , t n Cornbe Moreton, Stamford, Co ) ' le kei.' vinef,'lpf°ld, Peveril West Down, PlYmPt°, ll, in tor te ll, liar;eY, 'Mallow, Ta ' unton Bishop, Stoney Church, fed, tell, DiLaeellff, Witheridge, Colum' pton, and Ei.hgreaettiltiiuomns titeSatiisiloulalell_the county of pevon 1 P e lol i i e ~ rilices e ti4 tY sae r d, they . "It h°43ide "1.4 °l) Sery d i e read t o bear their shares of the be subjected to. theWhlviocuhTig.nd immediate" abolition e of slavery planter might . hlp t i i, eoti r e a t t .riuu, of th: h t ol !:.:t e that was a point well worthy of khe t t e h i ;th f, i iar elonettoturlyd not agree with the noble lord that the to toware.,,,,aancipatntt! properly be t c o a b ll e ed an u a p c u t n to pay ~ t P4rtieurrit,ll,e, people of England under any circum illti u k give 1,04,..-., to which existed at present, to call upon l i o •`' Prod . -"`.1 7 to do that which it was extremely doubtful Ikteipiolou ~..uetive of any ood to either party.—(Hean)--- khi st , took 4.. that if suchgan arrangement as was contem s wo,lti b e between the colonists and the slaves, the co ;‘,(1111.1te ou„t?,either alienated from England, or destroyed. tte . 'et of''uot to act on the dictates of, he had no doubt, illt erf Il e People, but who were totally ignorant about te 1 t te r er ed bet li ght the house would do well to reflect before . i l Jl llt e he n o ween the master and the slaves ; but if it did I tl OM ested the house would place that interference on C4i_roaqv synta-ble footing. The eniancipation of the blacks 1r,4012ei reost the country the e or six millions of money. te n thaTitlthENs thought hon. member for Oldham had tir tu ,, 4 u ! , 4111,.. e people of England were already taxed to an k 441 tltlg, cill'Ullt to keep uP slavery Were it not for the dis kr 111,4ait. heB °ll sugar the system' of slavery would perish 44 h•r),..}1:1-N k Ll 4o ti • *le t :, was sorry to hear the oliservations of his gallant 4 Is, tt that the 1 Wh,t, in._ xi,,e,s_e 0,. peop.e . of this_country were taxed to ,`,l.Pare4 Join . t tlavery in the W est Indies. Upo_n . this Its ti e s w ar gue Join issue with his hon. and gallant fuencl. kri t ,' • Ak he ,at the proper period, upon facts, and not upon "lalthQ,,,pdidhe oineatlieon. and - galat member spoke of the t.,ll4 l. ..t,, v4zsis e tfluardseia..y u e 8 l a a y b o t il u a r t ? the ( n su e g a a r r , f h r e o a m r. t ) hat qu . arter was k e Zatl t e `"llei. TitNeTo 410Ine o bservations, which were inaudible 4it pr for oldhaN would take leave to say in reply to the honl, l ic: l . )at e , l to papln' t hat the petitioners had stated that they ), t ilt 4, reaso. their share of whatever might be required i r ,ilo 1 ,4? e. coh eu lt r i r e e !'ec o ense to the planters. He must re : th4ti 1 0 , er h a millo eartily in the sentiments expressett , I loi t ?Ilt. d e u d e ' 1 44 I:, ceoliliaB exceedingly anxious to see the ques re arci b ,-, not see how it co ld be justly settle . d ~ qave e. _ 0 . f u_ k r ill a et , whi c h h L uis had or the property of the planters in VilttLt. 1, s of p, r , ad 'peen a ugmented by the legislature in Vt I.!.;Yste rsell`ttuellt. (Hear, hear ) ol t e nter s t° bring forward his ' motion, that the PlT 'etr) If" l ng oarhesalled Separatists should be allowed, in 1: i ld r earr tiler e wur ,, , to give their solemn affirmation.. (Her, .e, 0 0 , r,1 a feo g. ean -- Y ° Nection, he would discuss it on the ' 'Or et ahh, llll sst / , / , , ~ tlrilf ill h e s igned et a . l( he had received a very numerous and 1 k; ti, e bu t ~_ ,it io, from all parties, in Dublin, in fa- N th . (4; 7 a Prayed.Llc thought the parties were entitled to the l'.4l,744il!t:Y:netlirolee?4:oblltirsoii.ifd the tb i s e r. h i a i l l i l y im were pa passed, ired. i t . ~,,,l vi e „ lost a rie of the constitution, by which its Weak a u !_ s dauall those illiberal restrictions as .in e' d not the strength of the constitu- THE LIVERPOOL tion ; and expressed his hope that the time was not far distant when civil right would be unaffected altogether by religious opinions. Mr. C. BULLER cited one instance of the bad effects of the law as it at present stood. A gentleman went to the Court of Chancery to make his affirmation to an affidavit; he objected to swear, but was willing to make his affirmation. The Lord Chancellor asked him whether he was a Moravian or a Quak er? (Hear.) He said he was neither, but still he had scru ples, and could not swear to it. The Lord Chancellor said he could not allow hint to affirm, and the sooner he became either a Quakcr or a Moravian the better; this was a most illiberal re mark, and the sooner it was out of the power of any man to say so, the better. In this case, the person in whose behalf the affidavit was, was a very severe sufferer. He trusted that the present bill would allow any who had scruples as to swearing to make his affirmation. Mr. PR YME said the hon. member might make a motion to that effect on a subsequent stage of the bill. Mr. H. GRATTAN spoke in favour of the measure, and'com plained of the numbers of oaths that members of that house were compelled to take. Leave to bring in the bill was then given. Mr. FINN moved for returns of the salaries paid to the judges in Ireland in 1792, and the amount of retired allowances during the same time. The order of the day for resuming the debate on the cur rency question was th - en read. SPECIMENS OF BRIBERY. We have been favoured by a London friend with the following verbatim scraps of the evidence taken before, the Committee on the Liverpool Election, and which we understand are in the course of being printed ; and as they are curious and rather comical, we now pub lish them for the amusement of our readers, as in duty bound, commencing with a fair witness, whose evi dente is of a very interesting nature : HOUSE OF COMMONS, 25th March, (6th day of the Inquiry.)— Alexander Bannerman, Esq., in the Chair. Elizabeth Robin son was called in and examined as follows : Where do you live in Liverpool ?—ln Pellew-street. Do you remember the last election?—Yes. Were you in the house of a freeman during the last election ? —Yes. Was there a child there ?—Yes. Did you see any body in that house besides the freeman ? Not at the time rwent.m. Did any body come in whilst you were there ?—Yes. Do you know who that person was ?—No. Did you see that person give the child anything ?—Yes. Did you look into the hand of the child ?—Yes. What did the child's hand contain ?—Three pounds ten shil lings—three sovereigns and half a sovereign. When you saw the gold in the hand of the child, did you ex press yourself astonished ?—I did. Was the mother of the child there ?—Yes. What did she say then?—" Hold your noise you fool!" She told me to hold my noise : she thought I had better sense. Was the husband present?—He was at the door. Did the gentleman who put the gold into the child's hand speak to the husband ?—Yes. He took him to the door and went out himself. Now I must ask you who this freeman was ? You will ex cuse me from mentioning his name, for my life was threatened not ten minutes before I came away, if I mentioned the name. By whom ?—By the man himself. When was that ?—Not once or Lwice. When was it—at the time you speak of ?—After it came out that I had mentioned about this three pounds ten, my life was threatened provided I came up here. You must tell us the name of the freeman ?—I dare not do it. [The Committee room was cleared, with the exception of the counsel and agents, and the witness was then informed that she would be . protected, but she inust state the name of the freeman.] The witness again stated that she dared not answer the question. The witness was directed to withdraw. _ _ The witness was again called in, and informed by the Chair man that she must state the name of the freeman, and that she would teceive every protection that the law could afford her, out that if she did not state the name she would be reported to the House. The witness again stated that she dare not state the name. [The witness was directed to withdraw.] So much for Madam Robinson's first examination.— The reader knows that, in consequence of her refusal to answer the question, she was taken to the bar of the House of Commons, and there told by the Speaker, that she must answer the question, and that, should she refuse to do so, she would be punished for her contumacious ness. On the 29th of March she was again brought be fore Mr. Bannerman and the committee, and the follow ing delightful colloquy took place : Elizabeth Robinson was again called in, and further exa mined. CHAIRMAN.-You have now had time for reflection: you have been admonished by the highest authority in the house; you were informed by that authority, that if you chose to answer as an honest and upright witness, you would receive the protection of the house. Now, I have again to ask you the question that was put to you the other day,—what is the name of the person in whose house you were upon that occasion ? I hope this hon. committee will allow me to speak. I told the gentlemen before I left Liverpool what I had done. I told them I had sworn upon my knees never to divulge it. I am already aware that a prison awaits me; I never was in one, and I do not know what one is except from the outside appearance; and I am willing to submit and surrender my life to it; but the name I dare not disclose, and, after my oath, I would not do it if my life depended upon it: and I hope you hon. gentlemen will take it into consideration that I have been brought here against my will away from my husband and child. You state that you swore upon your knees that you would not state the name—is that the truth ?—lt is the truth. (The committee room was cleared.) After some time counsel and parties were again called in. Elizabeth Robinson was again called in, and cross-examined by Mr. Hutchinson, as follows : What street do you live in, in Liverpool ?—Sterling-place, Pellew-street; I have been there four years now. Are you Mistress Robinson or Miss Robinson ?—Mistress Ro binson. Are you married?—Yes, I have been, married a second time. What was the name of your first husband ?—Jeremiah Mas sey was my first husband. Did Jeremiah belong to a club ?—He belonged to a club be longing to the shop where he worked. That is a club which allows money to widows to bury their husbands ?—Yes. Did you get the allowance for burying Jeremiah when he died ?—Yes, he was buried. Do you mean to state that that club allowed you the usual allowance which they give to widows when a husband dies?— They do not give any. \% not the club to which Jeremiah belonged in the habit of allowing . sums of money to the widows of partners of that club ?—To Inter them, but no more. When Jeremiah died, did that club make yon any allowance for burying him ?—Yes, he was decently interred. Did the club allow you any money to bury him ?—His club buried him and I had nothing more to do with it. Did the club to which your husband belonged make you any allowance upon his death?—None, no more than burying him. Did they make you any allowance for burying him ?—NO, they decently interred him themselves. Did you not apply to them for the allowance, and did they not refuse you, and was not the allowance given to his mother ? —No ; bring his brother before me, and, if he can say it was, I am willing, and would, with my life, pay for it. His brother ne ver received one halfpenny. Did you not apply to them, and did they not refuse to make you any allowance ?—No, I did not. At what church did you marry Massey, and when ?—That I am not brought here for; nor, should my life pay for it, I would not do it. Are you sworn not to answer that question too ?—/ will not do it : a question that I was not brought from Liverpool to answer —I will not answer. _ _ [The witness withdrew.] The next witness, whose evidence has acquired some notoriety, and which is nearly as excellent in its nay as that of Mrs. Elizabeth. Robinson, is Mr. Charles Aber crombie, who was examined on the 16th March. It is as follows : _ _ _ Are you a merchant in Liverpool ?—Yes. Do you remember, on the second day of the last election, about the close of the polling, standing near the steps of the Toxteth-park booth ?—Yes. Was there aperson of the name of James Baird there ?—Y es . Did you see some voters standing near the bar?-1 did. Will you tell the committee what you saw take place saw STANDARD. several voters go up and give their votes. One was dressed in a blue jacket and canvas trousers, and he appeared to me to be a sail-maker. I did not hear his name, but he voted for Sir H. Douglas and Lord Sandon. I saw one of the canvassers put something which appeared to be like a bank-note into his hand. He turned round with it in his hand, and opened it. it was a five pound Bank of England note ! ! and I told him when he turned about that he was welt paid for his vote, and the man put it into his pocket and walked away. What coloured ribbons had the gentleman that was , canvas sing ?—The canvasser had red ribbons, with one of Lord San don's tickets in his hat. At what time of the day was this ?—Between half-past two and three o'clock. Did you yourself interfere in the election any way ?—I did not. (Cross-examined by Mr. ROGEns.) Where were you standing at this time ?—About two or three steps behind the voter that received the money. You say the man you saw was in a blue jacket and canvas trowsers ; that is a very common dress, is it not ?—For sail makers it is. You did not hear anything about voting at the poll-booth ? I only heard him give his vote ! ! Was there much noise at the time ?—Not a great deal. You do not know who the man was ?—No. Have you ever seen him since ?—Not to my knowledge. Have you made any inquiries to find out who the man was? —No. Did you communicate the circumstance to the committee at Liverpool?—No, I did not; I came here against my will! You do not know whether he was a ten pound householder or a burgess ?—No. ISid you make any inquiry as to the gentleman who had red ribbons in his hat ?—I did not. Did you know him before? I did not. Were there many people standing round—could other per sons have seen this as well as yourself? If others had been standing beside me they might have seen it. Was any body standing beside you ? They were standing close to the Knot, with their faces to the Booth. Did you mention it to any one at the time? I mentioned it to Mr. Baird. But you did not point it out to other persons? I. did not. Can you describe the person with the red ribbons? No, if I had been anxious to find it out I could have seen it becp.use I knew two of the canvassers that were there, but I did' not wish to have any thing to do with it. Will you give us the names, of those two gentleman ? The one was Lieutenant Robinson of the Royal Navy; the name of the other was Fairclough. Is Mr. Fairclough a sort man or a tall man ? He is either a cooper or the son of a cooper, I do not know which. Had you seen how long this man had been standing at the bar? No, 1 could not say. How long had you yourself been there? I stood there about ten or fifteen minutes altogether. Were they in front of you or behind you ? They were in front of me. They could not fail to see that you were standing close to them ? They were within a yard and . a half of me! What aged man was the gentleman who put a five pound note into his hand? His back was to me at the tune he did it. Can you say what his figure was? From his appearance I shouldjudge him to be a man under thirty years of age. Could you observe whether he was a young man or not ? His back was to me at the time, but I should suppose they were both apparently then under thirty years of aye. Did you observe the canvasser's face ?—I had a slight view of his face, but I did not wish to look at it. (The committee adjourned and reassembled on the 20th March, when Mr. Abercrombie was again called in and cross examined.) What compartment was it that the man voted in ?—He voted in the one on the left hand. Is that the one nearest to the Town of Liverpool ?—Yes ; at least he was standing there when he got the money, about the centre, as far as my recollection goes he was standing on the left hand side. _ _ _ You know that the compartments are divided according to the letters of the alphabet, and where there are two compartments only it runs (rain A to I, and from 1 to Z . ?—I think there were only two compartments at that booth. You are sure that he voted at the compartment next the Town ?—He stood there. Did you see Mr. Baird vote ?—Yes. Can you tell me whether he voted at the same compartment that Mr. Baird did ?—Mr Baird voted in the same place where the man stood. Then he must have been within the letters A and I ?—I can not say with certainty that he voted there; I can only say that I saw him standing there. I understood you to say on Monday that you did see the man vote ?—I heard him. Then if you heard him you must have had an opportunity of seeing in which compartment he was voting ?—I have stated that he stood in the compartment nearest to the Town, but he was not close up to the left hand ; he stood about the centre of the left hand compartment. Have you ever expressed any wish to disfranchise the bur gesses of Liverpool am not aware that I ever did ; but I should certainly wish it, for it certainly would be a benefit to me in my business. Do von not wish it ?—lt would be a benefit to me in my busi ness, so far as mynothing trade is concerned, and else. • Will you explain what y ou mean by that ?—I think that, as a ship owner, I pay more for carpenters' wages, more for sail makers' wages, and more for labourers' wages generally than I should if they were disfranchised; because they employ those men not for their ability or capacity of working, but because they afterwards have votes at the elections. 'hien you are assuming that the liberal wages given to the lower classes is an injury ?—I am assuming that if I give a man 4s. Bd. a day for his labour, and could get another that would do double the labour for the same money, it would be a benefit to ME. We have only this week room for the evidence .of one witness for the defence, but, as he is an important one, we need offer no apology for publishing an abstract of it here. MARCH 29th.—John Wright, Esq., called in and examined. Are you a magistrate of the county of Lancaster ?—I am. And also of the borough of Liverpool ?—I am. Do you live in Liverpool ?—I live at Everton, close at Liver pool, within the boundary of the present borough. Were you a supporter of Sir Howard Douglas and Lord San don at the last election ?—I was. Did you canvas the old as well as the new constituency ? Of course I did. Upon that canvas were you applied to for money, or drink, or any other inducement to vote by any members of the old constituency ?—Never, not a farthing, in either one way or the other. _ _ Have you lived in Liverpool long ?—All my life, nearly. Do you know the old burgesses generally ?—I do, perhaps as well as any body. Do you know whether any jealousy existed amongst the old constituency of the new ?—Certainly, there was great jealousy, Were they unwilling to vote at the same polling booth ?—So much so that we were absolutely obliged to go to the Mayor to desire that placards should be put up to state to them that they must vote at such places as were pointed out by a former placard, according to the new bill. What was the general state of the town, during the election, with respect to drunkenness P—l should say, from the 'observa tions that I had occasion to make before, at other elections, and at this, that certainly it appeared to me that there was less drun kenness at this than at almost any election I had seen. Do you know what directions were given to the canvassers ? —I do; there was a report, on the first day's election, that our opponents were about to give the wages of the day, and it was spoken of in the committee where the canvassers were to come ; and we were all of one mind strongly to enforce upon the can vassers not only not to give, but not to promise to give anything, In consequence of that resolution of the committee, were those directions given to the canvassers ?—They were. We conclude our extracts for the present with the fol lowing complete and unanswerable refutation of Mr. Abercrombie's statements in the evidence of Mr. Fair elough : Mr. Robert Fairelough was called in and examined by Mr. Hutchinson-as follows: You live at Liverpool?—l do. Are you a wholesale grocer there?—Yes. What is your father?—A cooper. Did you vote at the last Election for Lord Sandon and Sir Howard Douglas?—l did. _ _ Were you a canvasser for Lord Sandon?—l was. Did you attend the Toxteth Park district booth ?—I Did you yourself give away any money to voters to induce them to vote at the Election?—Not any. Did you see any given?—Not any. Were you at the roxteth Park booth about three o'clock in the afternoon of the second day ?—I was. Did youlake up some voters in a coach about that time ? Yes. . . Were you there with those voters at that time ?—I was. Did you see a gentleman of the name of Baird standing near 0 :) i ..1.9 a) the steps of the bar of the booth ?—I think he was leaving the booth. Did you see any other gentleman with him P—There was a person went away with him. 1)o you know who that person was P—No, I do not. Were you at the moment at the booth with a voter ?—I was standing in the parapet of the street—they would not allow me to go into the booth. Did the man at the time make any application to you for a ribbon to shew his colours ?—Yes. One of the voters?—Yes. Did you at first ;efuse to give him a ribbon ?—Yes I did. Did he go up the steps of the bar to vote ?—Yes he did, I refused him a long time, he said he must shew his colours; said, "when you have voted I will give your wife a good ribbon;" and when l ie came down I gave him one. How was that man dressed ?—He had a blue jacket and white trousers. Had you at that time any ribbons in your pocket, wrapped up in paper ?—I had. Did you give him one of those ribbons or two ?—I gave him one at the time, and we went down to the tally-room together, and I then gave him another; he said that one was for his wife, and he wanted one for himself. Can you take upon yourself to say that the paper you gave him contained nothing but a ribbon ?—Fes, I will swear it. Did you give him a £5 note, or anything of the kind ?—No, I did not. Do you recollect, after having given the voter the ribbon. hearing a gentleman standing by say anything to him heard him make a remark something to this effect, that he had made a good day's work. Upon hearing the gentleman make that remark to the voter, did you yourself say anything to the gentleman ?--I said that if he had a vote, and he would vote, he should have the same. Did you afterwards see the gentleman that you spoke to walk away with the other person with whom he was standing?—Yes, he did. The other gentleman, you have told us, was Mr. Baird ? Yes, they left the booth together. Are you able to tell us the name of the voter P—No, I cannot. I took five men up at the same time. Are you quite positive about his dress ?—They were all dressed alike that I took up. Do you know where they had met with that man ?—Atßo by-'s, a public-house in Jackson-street, and at the tally-room likewise. We left Jackson-street and walked into Mill-street; and a coach was going, and they said they would not walk but ride, and they got on it and went to the tally-room, and then I went from the tally-room to the hustings. Cross-examined by Mr. Rushton. What time of the day was this?—About three o'clock. Were you canvassing in the district where Roby's public house was ?-1 was. Did you go there on the afternoon of the second day to meet these men ?—I did. Were the men drinking ?—They were not. Did any conversation take place with you as to their votes? —They were then waiting to vote. Was anything said to you about its being a dry election ? Not anything. Did they ask you for any drink ?—They asked for drink, but I said I would not give them any. Who was with you at that time?—The men were all there ; no_one else. What were the men ?—They were of different trades. Were they all dressed alike think they were; but I will not be positive about that. Did you take them away to Toxteth Park booth immediately? —I went up to speak to my father. Did you then take them to the 'roxteth Park booth ?—Yes: When you got to the booth what time was it?—About a quar ter past three. Was that booth divided into compartments ?—lt was. Whereabouts did you stand ?—I stood ou the inside of the railing on the parapet. You say you saw Mr. Baird there, and you saw Mr. Baird go away. ifid . 'Mr. Baird go away with his friend, whilst you were standing at the parapet?—Mr. Baird went away, and this per son followed Mr. Baird and went away. Where werulkou standing then?-f-bn the parapet inside of the railing. Then, when Mr. Baird and his friend went away, you were standing at a distance from the polling-bar ?—I was inside. Were you at the bar with the voter?—Yes, 1 was waiting for him to come down the steps after voting. Did von stand close to the voter?—No, I stood below. Did Mr. Abercrombie, or Mr. Baird's friend, stand between you and the voter ?—I do not know. You say he spoke to the man ?—This man had voted when the person spoke to the man. Where were you then ?—I was waiting at the bottom. Were you standing alongside of him when he voted ?—No, they would not allow me to do so. Did you stand at the bottom of the steps ?—No. Where did Mr. Abercrombie standl—l do not know; I did not notice him till the man came off the steps. Where did he stand then ?—lle was then passing out. Was the man on the steps at the bar when you gave him this paper?—He was just coming off the steps ; fcannot tell whe ther he was on the step or not. What did the gentleman say ?—IIe said to him that he bad had a good day's work, or something to that effect. Was that booth divided into compartments?—lt was. • 'Was Mr. Baird voting at the same compartment where you was standing ?—I did not hear Mr. Baird vote. Did you ascend the steps when Mr. Baird was coming away? —No, Had you been at the bar with the voter when Mr. Baird was coming away ?—The voters were coming down when i saw Mr. Baird. Was Mr. Baird passing away ?—Mr. Baird appeared to be coming away from the hustings. And you were then standing near the man to whom you gave the paper?—Yes, Mr. Baird passed me. Had Mr. Baird passed you when you gave the paper ?—He had; he was going away. You say this paper contained a ribbon ?—I did. Did you wrap it up yourself?-1 did. You sav the man asked you for a ribbon, in order to shew his colours; did he wear any colours ?—No. Ile had no ribbon on his.hat ?—Not any. He had not two red ribbons on his hat and one blue ?—No. The voter you took up had no ribbons at all ?—Not any. Was not there a rail between the compartments of the booth? —There was a partition. Did the man you took up vote at the booth with Mr. Baird? —I cannot say which booth he polled in. When was your recollection first turned to giving this ribbon to this man ?—The first I ever heard of it was on last Wednes day morning. And you - have recollected all these minute circumstances since Wednesday morning ?—I recollect them perfectly well: But you cannot tell us whether Mr. Baird voted at the-same booth with the man you took up ?—I cannot. Did you give ribbons to the other voters, as well as to that man ?—No, I did not, I only gave two ribbons during the whole election. Then it so happened, that at half-past three on the second day, you gave two ribbons to this man, wrapped in paper, and those were the only two you gave during the whole election?— They were. And you were a canvasser during the whole period ?—I was. You were at the district committee rooms ?—I was. 4 Were there ribbons distributed there?—No. Did you ever ask fur any ?—I asked for some, but I not any me. But you happened to have two ribbons at that time,. wrapped in paper, and you happened to have given those to a man m a blue jacket and light trowers, and Mr. Baird happened to be there at that time ?—Mr. Baird was walking away,. he could not see it I am sure. _ _ Was the man standing close to you had hold of his arm. Did you put it down, or did you give it him openly can not say. On which side was the man standing ?-1 cannot. say. How many compartments were there in the bouth?—Two. Which way did they.both face ?—One nearer of the Paik, and one nearer Liverpool. Which did he poll at ?—I cannot say, I polled some men in both at the same time. This man that you gave this remarkable ribbon_ to, on which side was he standing when you gave it to him?—l cannot recollect. Did you pass the booth as you brought him up . ?—l brought him up in a coach, directly opposite the booth. Re-examined by Mr. Hutchinson, You were a canvasser, had you a ticket in your hat ?—I had. Do you know whether any of the other canvassers in that district, had tickets in their hats?—l believe they had. When the man went up to vote, you did not, at the time, oh. serve the gentleman, but it was the gentl e man fi rst speaking to the man, that drew your attention to him ?—lt was. By the Committee. What was the ribbon wrapped up in ?—ln a piece of cap paper. There was no printing upon the paper ?—Not anv.--Th e witness withdrew.