The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1853-06-21 00:00:00

fibtrfani fi-tinbittV TUESDAY MORNING, JUNE 21, 1853, THE WEEK. AVE have now reached the longest day, and entered Ipon the season of Summer with more favourable prospects than were apparent at the commencement of Spring. The continuance of dry sunny weather has compensated for the heavy rains which deluged the earth some months previous, and should the forthcoming season realise present expectations, the harvest of this year may not be so unproductive as was at one time feared. The numerous ferry-boats on the Mersey have been crowded with passengers, and the various pleasant places on the Cheshire hore have been thronged with visitors, anxious to scape, if only for a few hours, from the busy town to indulge in rural recreation—a devotion to Nature which is evident almost everywhere. While the tedious investigation into th election is detaining many of our townsmen in London, numbers of others are attracted in a contrary direction to the metropolis of Ireland, to witness the manifold beauties of the Great Industrial Exhibition, e increasing attendance at which shows that it is every day becoming more appreciated. On Thursday and Friday last, the departures from ;his town were more than ordinarily numerous, )wing to the expected attraction of a grand military •eview in Dublin, but it did not take place. The arrival of the Cherokee, on Thursday, from the city of Toronto, on Lake Ontario, excited some little attention, from the fact of its being the first vessel to England from the fresh waters of Canada. The vessel, which is 235 tons burden, is a creditable specimen of colonial shipbuilding adapted to inland navigation; and this commencement of a trade, which, it is hoped, may prove mutually advan tageous, is owing to the enterprise and perseverance of Captain GASKIN, the owner and commander, whose services are so well appreciated at the port from which he sailed, that the authorities enter tained him at a public dinner previous to his dept.. ture, as we stated a few weeks since. The interesting question of important improve- ments in the town underwent a fair discussion on Wednesday, at a full meeting under the presidency of the NIAYoR, and the judicious resolution was come to of appointing an influential committee to ake the whole subject—of alterations necessary and means of accomplishing them—into considera tion. The committee have a good work before them, and their report will be anxiously looked for. The distribution of prizes to the students at the Collegiate Institution, on Friday, passed off with more than ordinary eclat, owing to the presence of Earl of HARROWBY, who, when Lord SANDON, 'epresented this borough in Parliament, and who took a prominent part in the proceedings. His lordship afterwards visited the Exchange, and eceived the general greetings of the merchants sembled in the newsroom The grand concert at the Philharmonic-hall, on Tuesday, amply realised the most sanguine anticipa tions. It was fully attended, and the magnificent building, filled with the beauty and fashion of Liverpool, presented a coup d'ail rarely equalled, while the cordial greeting with which the per formances were received showed that the nume rous audience fully appreciated the merits of the several artistes, Mdlle. AGNES BURY, Herr PISCIIEK, and Herr REICHIRT sustained their well-earned reputation, while the execution of Signor BOTTESINI on the double bass elicited a rapturous encore. The strike of the cotton porters and other labourers has ended, as might have been expected, in a capitulation. The majority of the men have shown their good sense by returning to their work, leaving the prime movers of the agitation—who, as usual in such cases, are the worst characters—to arry on the agitation by themselves LIVERPOOL ELECTION PETITION. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE TUESDAY, JUNE 14 John Downes, recalled, said he was paid twice by Mr. Buckmaster; he received all that was then due : the second payment was after the election. He was in the procession on the nomination-day, which started from Marshall's coffee-house at Edgehill, and he took some to the poll next day in cabs and omnibuses. S3T7 Mr. Rowett at the coffee-house on the polling day; also saw some tickets in the committee-room, a dozen or two of which he had himself : perhaps Mr. Wensley, the secre tary, gave them to him ; but he gave those tickets, which were refreshment tickets, to every voter whom he did not think would be offended. Beef and bread were given the electors after the poll ; sometimes as many as a hundred were having these refreshments. The tickets represented fourpence. William Marshall, recalled, said he had carged for 571 tickets at fourpenco each ; he made an additional charge for the eatables of £7 16s. 10d., and of £4 Bs. for refresh ments to messengers and others. His bill amounted altogether to £24 Gs. 10d. He had not been paid. He charged his bills to the committee for carrying on the election in the ward. Mrs. Bispham7landlady of the Vine Tavern, in Pitt street, had received £8 10s. for the hire of a committee room in her house : Mr. Rigby, chairman of the com mittee, paid her ; her account had not been settled. Thomas Poystance, a resident in Tosteth-park ward and a non-elector, said he was engaged as assistant secre tary to the Pitt-street ward, and was engaged by Mr. Rimmer, a timber merchant, who, seven weeks before the election, told him to go to Mr. Buckmaster and fill up circulars calling a meeting at the Vine Tavern. He got the circulars from Mr. Buckmaster, and filled them up at the Vine. The canvassers in the ward obtained the books, &c., from Mr. Buckmaster, and made their reports to him. Was paid 7s. a-day ; received the money weekly from Mr. Buckmaster. Refreshments were supplied on the day of the poll. John Taylor re-examined, said, on June 7th he heard Mr. Callis, at the Vine Tavern, order drink after the committee business was over : had heard Mr. Callis give such orders several times, and both on the nomination and polling days. Those of the company only who were invited partook of the liquor. A breakfast was given to the voters on the morning of the polling day, in a tent erected at the rear of the Vine. He partook of the break fast along with three or four hundred besides. Nobody paid for the breakfast that he knew of. James H. Lancaster, a householder and voter in St. Paul's Ward, and who keeps a public-house at 78, Old hall-street, stated that be was a committee man, and he thought directions were given to the ward committee to send in the canvassers' reports to the central committee. He, as a canvasser, took his voters to the poll in cabs, and some went back to his house, where he gave them a glass of spirits or beer. He delivered his bill, which was X 4, to Mr. John Briscoe, chairman of the committee. In reply to the Chairman, Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE said the agency of Mr. Briscoe was made out by the evidence of Mr. Kellett, printer, to whom orders had been given by Mr. Briscoe for printing, which Mr. Bold subsequently paid. The CHAIRMAN said the committee were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence of the agency of Mr. Briscoe. Mr. Lancaster was then recalled, and said Mr. Briscoe paid him 135. in the pound towards his bill. The parties whom he treated at his own home was on his own account, as refreshments were strictly prohibited. Not more than 20s. or 30s. were spent in refreshments at his house on the polling day. Thomas Hughes, landlord of the Letters_publichouse, at which one of Messrs. Mackenzie and Turner's com mittees sat, of which Mr. Briscoe was chairman, deposed a that he had given refreshments on the election to .y 13y order of the committee ; he tendered the bill o Mr. Briscoe, and had been paid the greater part o f it. He also received a portion of the bill from Mr. the whole of the bill was £23. Vaughan ; WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15 John Hughes, recalled, deposed that the refreshments ere supplied to the canvassers and committee wh._ ,t his house : the order was to that effect. Lawson,Wilfrid landlord of the Great George Tavern, n Great Ger rge Ward, deposed that he had a committee t hi; that he supplied the banner-bearers and the rreshments on the nomination and polling ays by order of Mr. Gibson, the secretary, and that his bill, which amounted to £ao, had not been paid. William Gibson, secretary to the committee at the Great George Tavern, deposed that he did not hire the rooms there. He was a voter, and lived in the ward at the time. There were nineteen or twenty canvassers, of whom M'K ever i gan was one. Reports were made t o hi m as to the state of the canvass, and once or twice a week he sent a report to Mr. Buckmaster at the head-office. He also got some Hat from the central room, and had been twice there at the beginning of the canvass. At the George Hotel, where he was on the nomination and fol lowing day, there.licas no treati ng o f vo te r s. He merely ordered some drink for a numb er o f l a d s . Th e c ommittee originated entirely among the members of the ward them selves. He was not _paid. Mr. Thomas Chapman was a band frith re 'anvasser of the ward The whole of the counsel for the sitting members had here been absent from the room for a considerable time, and, at the conclusion of this witness's examination, Mr. BROWN, parliamentary agent for the sitting mem bers, applied to the committee for an adjournment for a quarter of an hour, observing that he had been running about for three counsel for the last half-hour, but could not find one of them. The CHAIRMAN said the committee bad no objection to that course. 'William Quaile, one of the committee in Great George Ward, ordered a glass of ale for a plumber before going to the poll with him. For this another canvasser paid, but none of the other electgrs had any refreshment. John AlgNally, examined before, was supplied with a glass of rum at the Great George Tavern on the polling day, for which he did not pay. He voted for Cardwell and Ewart. Jonas Gleave also gave him a glass of rum at the bar of the Swan. • Joseph Murphy, recalled, had a pint of ale at the George Tavern on the morning of the election for which he did not pay. A man named Gibson asked them what they would like to have. (Mr. Gibson was called in and iden tified by the witness.) Henry Harrison, landlord of a public-house in St. James's-street, in Great George Ward, deposed that he was a canvasser for Mackenzie and Turner. A great many sailmakers voted from his house in cars. He gave them breakfast and liquor. He went to the Great George Tavern and got appointment from the committee for some of them to be colourmen. He supplied all the refresh ments on his own account, but he hacl spoken to Mr. Wagstaff, the hatter. Since the election had applied for payment to Mr. Buckmaster at the central office, but he said he had nothing to do w ith it. If Mr. Buckmaster had had the money all ready, he should have asked for about £7O. Had also spoken to Mr. Wagstaff and Mr. Bold. He gave Crawley, a voter, ss. for carrying colours; John Davey ss. for the loss of his " dav's time" after he polled—all out of his own pocket. He paid £4O for flagbearers ; they came with cards. The money he paid himself came to £lO. He paid William Glass for the loss of his time and several other parties. The committee sat till nearly 5 o'clock. THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1853. THURSDAY, JUNE 16 William Gibson recalled, deposed that he collected the accounts and sent them to the central office; that he knew nothing about tha supply of a batch of blank voting cards to any one ; that Mr. Wagstaff spoke to him about the accounts, mentioning Harrison's account to him the day after the election ; that he got Harrison's bill and ' sent it to the central office; that the flagmen were to re ceive ss. a-day, but he did not know where the money was to come from; that the amount of Harrison's bill annoyed him ; that he thought he heard Harrison say that he charged for the flagmen as he had paid them ; that he sent Harrison to Mr. Buckmaster for payment ; that he paid certain bills in the ward, having got the money from Mr. Bold after sending in the bill to Mr. Buck master ; that he repudiated Harrison's bill; that Mr. Buckmaster knew nothing about it; that Lawson stated what was wrong when he said refreshments had been ordered by witness ; that the refreshments were ordered by the general committee; and that he had nothing to do with the breakfast. Thomas Chapman was the next witness called, but he did not answer to his name. The service of the speaker's warrant upon him and the notice to attend having been proved, the committee was about to report the matter to the house that Chapman might be taken into custody by the sergeant.at-arms for contempt ; but, on the sugges tion of Mr. Freshfield, the committee declined reporting until the witness had been communicated with by telegraph. Thomas Inman, a warehouseman at the Albert Dock and a voter, deposed that he was the secretary of Mackenzie and Turner's committee, which met at the Royal Oak public-house, kept by William Crane, in Park-road, corner of Upper Warwick-street; that he keut a list, which he gave up to Mr. Buckmaster after the election ; that during the progress of the canvass, he made one report of the result of the canvass to the can vassing committee at the office of the central committee ; that he went to the central office once or twice to state the progress which was being made in the ward ; that he received the list of voters from the central committee room; that some of the canvassers were paid and others not ; that he appointed 80 colour-bearers, none of whom were voters ; that the landlord of the Royal Oak produced his bill, the amount of which was £l2 or £l5 ; that he did not think he paid any account but the flag-bearers', which was £3O or £4O, or more; that he received that money from James Robertson, one of the canvassers ; that that gentleman was secretary to the two wards; knew wit ness would require money, and accordingly gaveit to him ; that Mr. Halhead and he were not occupied on the polling-day in making out a list at the committee room in Park-place, near St. James' church ; that a strange man presented him with a bill in the street, and that he told the person he knew nothing about it; that the committee existed for municipal purposes, being self appointed ; and that he never sanctioned treating in any way whatever. John Williams, the landlord of the Hawarden Castle, was next called, but not answering to his name, and the service of the speaker's warrant upon him having been proved, also of a notice to attend in May, and that he bad several times since had notice to attend before the committee, the committee decided to report this man for contempt to the house. Susanna Jones, wife of Evan Jones, landlord of the Old Oak, 279, Bedford-street, deposed, that on the polling-day voters were carried from their house in 'busses; that Mr. B. Jones was there, helping them away ; that she paid three or four men what they had, for their day's wages, on Saturday, her husband having left the cash with her ; that she paid each man 55., paying five or six in all, to the best of her recollection that her husband paid a few in her presence on the Saturday night and in the beginning of the following week, ten or twelve per haps ; that her husband had not been paid for this in her presence ; that she herself had received nothing ; that bread and beef was supplied at their house on the day of the election ; that she received no order, save from her husband ; and that she believed her husband kept a bill, but she had never seen it, and believed her husband had destroyed it. Evan Jones. the former witness' husband, deposed that he made out the list of all who were to go from his house, and gave it to Mr. Jones ; that about twelve were paid ; that Mr. Jones promised to pay the men for loss of time, and ordered witness to pay all the men who voted from his house; that Mr. Jones did pay him the money, both for the men and the refreshments ; that the bill might be £26 for refreshments, and £l2 for wages ; that Jones told him not to give the voters any drink till after they had voted ; that he paid some of Mr. Jones's own men, and also gave them refreshments. Felix M'Cleary : I voted from the Old Oak. I went there at eight o'clock, and had my breakfast there. I returned to the Old Oak in the evening. I had something to drink at the Old Oak. - - Mr. SMITH here objected to the examination proceeding until the agency of Mr. W. B. Jones had been established. The CHAIRMAN said the committee were of opinion that there was not sufficient proof to establish that Mr. W. B. Jones acted as an agent. FRIDAY, JUNE 17. The petitioners closed their evidence on this the 18th day of the inquiry. Many witnesses in the lobby were not called. The first called was John May, licensed victualler, Windsor-street, Tox teth-park, deposed that he had seen Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Turner in the neighbourhood walking, and in a car riage with Mr. Henry Steel, Mr. Duncan Gibb, and Mr. Buckley Jones ; that they were sometimes walking and sometimes in a carriage, Mr. Buckley Jones giving direc tions where the candidates were to go ; that, at a meeting in the Toxteth-hall, a fortnight before the election, he saw the members go into the Hall accompanied by Mr. Jones, who was one of the speakers ; that he had come up to London that morning, a message having come to his house in Liverpool the previous evening at six o'clock ; that Mr. Sharpe, solicitor, Southampton, came with him; that his examination had been taken down by that pen man; that Mr. Sharpe did not say anything to him about Mr. Buckley Jones; that he voted for Ewart and Card well ; that he was on the hustings at the election, and " a deal of corruption he saw there ;" that on one occasion he got up a cheer against Turner and Mackenzie, and got them hissed out of the street ; that he did not canvass one voter himself ; that he followed Mackenzie and Turner through the streets in which they were canvassing in order to watch his opportunity to get them hissed, and partly because he did not like the principle of members canvassing for themselves. Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE then contended that the agency of Mr. Buckley Jones was proved, and he proposed to recall the witness whom it was proposed to examine yesterday when the objection was raised. Mr. H. SMITH commented in strong terms on the nature of the testimony which had been brought forward after the decision of the committee yesterday, in order to make out a case against Mr. Buckley Jones. The man who had been called for this purpose was a strong parti &ln, and indeed one more hostile to Messrs. Mackenzie and Turner could not possibly be conceived. Mr. Smith alluded to the manner in which the witness gave his evi dence as to the presence of Mr. Buckley Jones with the members—to his hesitation, and first of all naming Mr. Buck Lloyd, which certainly indicated that he spoke more from previous " preparation " than from perfect recollec tion and personal knowledge. The committee ordered the room to he cleared, and on the readmission of the public the Chairman announced that the committee had decided that the agency of Mr. William Buckley Jones was sufficiently proved for the examination to proceed. Felix M`Levy, recalled, deposed that he got some re freshment at Evan Jones's house, the Old Oak, on the election morning • that Mr. Buckley Jones was .there; and that othe rs besides himself were procuring refresh ments, but he did not see any one pay for anything. John Folds deposed exactly to the same effect. Mary Hiles, landlady of the Sefton Arms, Parliament street, Toxteth Ward, stated that, on the election day a number of people went from the house to the poll • that no refreshments i n p art i cular were supplied, and she was paid for what the people got at the time it was called for ; that she bad only one account, and that was against Mr. Walthew, a carpenter ; that she had not sent it in because he was a bad payer ; that Mr. Buckley Jones's overlooker, Mr. Fisher, was at the house on the day of the election, and gave her money for drank for the free men. Mr. Smith objected, and the witness was with drawn, it being understoDd that her evidence would go I for nothing unless she was recalled. '\ • Fisher, surveyor and overlooker of Mr. Buck ley J on es's works, said he voted at the last election for Mackenzie and Turner ; that he was at the Sefton Arms polling day, and went with certain voters to the poll ; that he paid their workmen ss. for their day's labour and loss of time the day of the election ; that it was a practice they had adopteu ever since he had been in Mr. Jones's employ to give the men, both voters and non-voters, a holiday, not only at the general election, but at the municipal election ; that they found that the men always worked the better for it ; they did their work more cheerfully for it, in case they wanted a bit of push at any time ; that the amount he paid in five shillings each to the workpeople was from £l5 to £lB, which he got from Mr. Buckley Jones, the Saturday afternoon afterwards ; that he was not aware of any preparations in the way of refreshment having been made for the men who polled from the Sefton Arms ; that, if a man wanted a pint of ale, he ordered it for him ; and that, in charging the amount to w M e r re . J in on h e i s s , em he pl g e a y v in e en h t im to understand that m a all the men Jame& Lee Travis, clerk in the efface of the " Reform Association," Liverpool, stated that he had ascertained from the poll-book the number of voters in the West Derby Ward. He had the return of the district No. 5, St. Anne's-place, Edge-hill. There voted for Mr. Card well 341, for Mr. Ewart 319, for Mr. Mackenzie 394, and for Mr. Turner 407. He had also a return of the total number of freemen upon the register, amounting to 2,219, of whom 1,901 polled, leaving 318 who did not poll. Some of the freemen bad qualifications as householders also. The number who had no qualification, except as freeman, was 1,583 ; and of these 1,344 polled ; 1,022 voted for Mac kenzie and Turner; 275 for Cardwell and Ewart ; 15 for Cardwell and Turner; 2 for Cardwell and Mackenzie ; 1 for Ewart and Turner ; 3 for Ewart and Mackenzie ; 10 plumpers for Cardwell ; 2 plumpers for Ewart ; 5 plumpers for Mackenzie ; and 9 plumpers for Turner. Total of freemen voting for Cardwell, 302; Ewart, 281 ; Macken zie, 1,032 ; Turner, 1,047 ; that was of freemen who ap peared upon the register, having no qualification except as freemen. An announcement was made that the evidence for the petitioners was at length closed. On the application of Mr. MACAULAY, the committee adjourned till twelve o'clock on Saturday. The CHAIRMAN inquired as to the witness Williams, whose contumacious conduct was - reported to the House of Commons last night, and who would be brought to London in custody of the Sergeant -at-Arms. He cer tainly thought that the committee ought to have been made aware that there was no intention to call him. Mr. MACAULAY offered an explanation to the effect that they found, subsequently to the application of the com mittee yesterday, that Williams's evidence was not mate rial, and they had since learned that he is labouring under ill health. Mr. SHARPE, the Southampton solicitor, who has been employed in Liverpool getting up the case, stated that he had seen Williams in Lieerpool yesterday, and that, when he mentioned the subject of the election petition to him, he became suddenly worse. (Laughter.) It was understood that, under the circumstances, an application would be made to the house to discharge Wil liams from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. SATURDAY, JUNE 18, The court met at twelve o'clock The CHAIRMAN said he had a great objection to making any reference to what had been stated elsewhere, but he understood that Mr. Turner wished to be called as a wit ness. The objection would arise, that a person who had been present during the proceedings could not be ex amined ; but be had no doubt such an objection as that would be waived. There was another circumstance to be considered. If Mr. Turner was called, everything that would follow upon a witness being called must attach to his evidence. Before Mr. Turner gave any evidence, he thought it most desirable that he should consult his own counsel as to the propriety of taking such a step. Mr. JAMES was obliged to the chairman for the sugges tion, and said that after his learned friend (Mr. Macaulay) had concluded his address, he should have an opportunity of consulting with Mr. Turner, and would on Monday announce the course he intended to pursue. Mr. MACAULAY then proceeded to run up the evidence on behalf of the petitioners. He said, although unques tionably the inquiry had been unusually protracted, it has not, I think, been protracted beyond what its importance demanded. The committee will have observed, lam sure, that it is not a mere question of intimidation, or bribery, or treating, that is involved, but a question respecting the character of nearly the most important constituency in England. The inquiry, the committee will have observed, affected the character of a very large portion of this constituency, in number exceeding fifteen hundred, and those being the most popular portion of that constituency. It was not, then, for the mere purpose of accumulating evidence upon evidence, to prove one par ticular point, that those I here represent have, by pro ducing such evidence upon evidence, protracted this in quiry to the length it has extended ; their motives were far beyond the mere question of the success or defeat of any particular candidate, at any particular election; but because they feel that the character of their borough is concerned, that they have determined, at all risks, to lay before the committee as large a body of evidence as they can, so as to enable the committee to judge what really is the character of the electoral body of Liverpool. The object of the petitioners is twofold : first, to obtain the decision of the committee as to the validity of the last election; and, secondly, to put them in a position to do that which, under the statute, they have the power to do, to pass special resolutions and to make a special report to the Crown. Taking the first class, bribery, and calling attention shortly to the individuality and character of the indivi duals concerned in this bribery, it will be found, in refe rence to the evidence on that head, that escape as regards one special circumstance, affecting the sitting members, to which I shall hereafter have occasion to advert, and to another, and their special resolution affecting, not the behaviour, but rather the manner of a gentleman of high respectability who now sits on my left hand, Mr. Bremner. With the exception of these two instances, the bribery has been transacted by five or six persons ; these are B. Jones, Fisher, Birchall, Jonas Gleave, M'Keverigan, and Rowett. I do not include the names of others who were mere go-between the parties who gave and those who received the bribes. With regard CO three of them you have had no occasion, in the course of the inquiry, to be called upon to say whether the prima facie case of bribery has been shown, those three being M'Keverigan, Fisher, and Rowett. And as there is no special necessity for it in reference to the case as it affects Buckley Jones, Birchall, and Jonas Gleave, by acts upon which we are about to found the probability, it will be waste of time to look superfluously on the evidence, as it refers thus to the other three. There is no doubt as to the agency of M`Keverigan and Rowett, whatever there may be about that of Fisher. It would seem that, whether freeman or householder, if he were in a certain position of life and willing to take the money, there was no difficulty in any voter, at any one of these wards where certain of these individuals were acting, obtaining five shillings on the day of election. Some of these cases have undoubtedly been put as payment of a day's wages without regard to the men holding any situation or employment, showing that it was perfectly frivolous to contend that there is anything short of a corrupt motion. I mean where you find Gleave and Birchall making bargains for a day's pay, and Rowett and M'Keverigan making the same bargain. You find they are not standing in the situation of em ployer and employed, and it is clear there was an intention to bribe and to receive a bribe. But these cases are not so numerous as the cases in which Fisher and Gleave figure. This unquestionably is now clear, from Mr. Fisher's own statement, that the payment of five shillings was confined to workmen who were voters ; and that if any one had come and asked for the five - shillings who had voted for Cardwell and Ewart he would not have obtained it. Evan Jones says distinctly, " I was to pay all who voted from my house, whether they were his (Buckley Jones's) men or not ;" and in another part of his examination you will find he states that a considerable number of persons voted from his house who were not the workmen in the yard of Buckley Jones. Again, Buckley Jones was at Evan Jones's house on the day of election, busily engaged in bringing up voters to the poll ; and he must have known that persons were paid by Evan Jones who were not in his yard. I have next to call the attention of the committee to the proof of bribery as regards M'Keverigan and Rowett. On the first day's sitting of the committee we had the evi dence of John Breckon, who was a workman in the esta blishment of which Mr. M'Keverigan was a partner. He is canvassed by a foreman of M'Keverigan, named Hum phrey Smith, who says he will guarantee to the witness a day's pay if he will go and poll for the sitting members. Breckon did poll for them, in pursuance of that guarantee, and he was paid by M'Keverigan himself. Thus, you perceive, M'Keverigan's foreman gives the guarantee with the authority of his master, and that M'Keverigan fulfils it. Then we have one Davies, another foreman of M'Ke verigan, bribing Peter Bryce. And it is material to ob serve that Peter Bryce was not only not in the employ ment of M'Keverigan, but was actually a man of a different trade. And all these go to M'Keverigan's yard. . M'Ke. verigan himself hands the money to Coward, and Coward pays the voters the stipulated sum. We have proved with regard to M'Keverigan the same facts which have been proved as to Buckley Jones, Jonas Gleave, and Birchall and M'Keverigan has been shown to take part in the elec tion so near the sitting members or theirundoubted respon sible agents, that the sitting members must suffer by his illegal acts if they have been in a situation to profit by his legal acts. You have a central committee, with Mr. Buck. master and a number of subordinate ward committees; and the first step to establish the agency of a person con nected with a ward committee is to bring that ward committee in connexion with the central committee. Let us see, then, if the ward committee to which M'Ke verigan was attached as a canvasser, for he is not put down as a member of the committee, was not closely allied to the central committee, so that the acts of that ward committee were in fact the acts of the central committee. Mr. M'Keverigan's ward was the Great George Ward, of which Mr. Gibson was the principal manager and sec retary ; and Gibson has proved by his own evidence that he was in close and distinct alliance with Buckmaster. That this ward is a limb of the central committee is, I think, most clear and indisputable. Now, Quaile. in his evidence, states distinctly that he remembered M'Keveri gan perfectly, and that he was never absent when the com mittee met ; whilst Gibson admitted that he was a can vasser, and that up to the last moment he was engaged in bringing up voters to the poll. Now, just look at the facts as they regard Rowett. There was a committee-room for the West Derby Ward at the Edge-hill Tavern, and a per son named Johnson says that Green asked him why he did not vote. His reply was, he was like the old horse waiting for the load. Green said, we are not giving any thing but a day's wages. This induced Johnson to vote for Turner and Mackenzie. Now, that is a distinct act of bribery. On the following Saturday this man went to Rowett, and here we see the system in which this part of the business was carried on. Green shows them in to Rowett one by one, and Rowett pays this man and three others a sum of money, he of course having been previously furnished with a list. Rowett is en. gaged in the West Derby Ward, which is in close contact with the central committee-room, and the evi. dence relating to that is that of Downes, a paid agent, or sort of assistant-secretary and canvasser, who had de rived his authority from Buckmaster, and who was paid by the chairman of the ward the amount of his claim. Of that committee Rowett was an active member, and the canvass was carried from the ward-room to the central committee. Ho was seen at the central committee-room, and his presence there was spoken to by three several respectable witnesses. The next class of bribery is that carried on by Birchall and Gleave. Birchall was a can vasser under Hatch, and the committee having heard Hatch's evidence, considered that Birchall was sufficiently established as an agent, being a canvasser employed by Hatch, who was duly authorised to make such arrange ' ments. Birchall, the committee will remember, was one of the canvassers employed to canvass St. Anne's Ward, of which the Pontack was the committee-room. Robert Calder, examined on 30th May, was the first witness who speaks of Birchall. Birchall invited the witness to go to the Pontack on the night of the nomination, and he did voted,somethingßirchall a sti d a a n y s ' there ttsothi oaylsole w who a s so ; and there he saw Birchall, and said he understood to lf t h h e er g e iv i e s n yo t u o uh,a'Yeanitilt'he Thenex next daywitnesst h e answers, e a r n s d , v ` o l t leave the he s matter ttiog s we w re a d ge , s " members, and, having Birchall gives him 12s, as he says, for himself and tw vo o others. e' I now come to the cases of bribery as carried out by Mr. Jonas Gleave. The evi dence of the 3d of May showed 1 l c ear y that Gleave pro mised a day's pay to the voters. Gleave used the same words ? ` 1 Oat Q wold give them a day's pay," tQ several ersons, and that he was fully cognisant of, and a party to the system which was being carried on. But there is another case in reference to the part which Gleave took in the matter which requires special notice. This is to be found in the evidence of Turner, who was examined on the 3d of June. Now, he tells the committee that he made an agreement with Gleave to work out some rent which he owed to Gleave, by employment to be given to him at the election, on condition that he voted for the sitting members. And afterwards, the witness tells you, " I received I2s 6d in money, and the rest went against the rent I owed." I now come to that part of the case which refers to treating. The CHAIRMAN : You said you would refer to another case connected with the charge of bribery in reference to the sitting members. Mr. MACAULAY I did so certainly. We felt that, in bringing this part of the case before the committee, it was necessary to lay before them all the evidence which bore upon it ; but the circumstance of any particular piece of evidence being in my brief would not necessitate my bringing it forward, if I thought, on consideration, it was not of a character fit to be adduced before the committee as tending to elucidate my case. i have here the state ments of the voter Brown and his wife, which appear coherent and consistent with the letter of the hon. mem ber (Mr. Turner) which I hold in my hand ; though that letter contains nothing of any corrupt act on his part, but so far as the promise spoken of by the witnesses is concerned, is in no way inconsistent with such a circum stance. This evidence was taken on the 3d of June. I thought it my duty to bring forward that particular case, not as one of a class of causes by which the election was affected, or that I wish to draw from it the conclusion that the sitting member, Mr. Turner, was more largely implicated than others were in the corrupt practices of which this is a specimen, but because I thought it right and just to the sitting member that the witnesses should be introduced and put upon their oaths, in order that the hon. member might take such course as he might be advised, and that the matter should not be allowed to rest on mere rumour. There is no denial of what has been said by Brown and his wife, and without thrown.; it out as a taunt to my learned friend, I invite him to exercise his judgment by examining Mr. Turner, who alone can give any answer to what really appears to me to go to establish a charge against him. This letter is quite consistent with the rest of the narra tion, as given by Brown and his wife ; and the real question is, whetter Mr. Turner did or did not hold the conversation which has been sworn to by the witnesses ? I say again that I do not press this as a taunt to induce my learned friend to put Mr. Turner into the witness box against his own discretion ; but it does appear to me, in this case, that there is not the same reason for abstain ing from calling the sitting member as there would be if there was more doubt as to the validity of the election than there really is, taking the direct evidence which has been laid before the committee ' and I cannot, under stand, therefore, how my learned friends can avoid calling Mr. Turner to refute the testimony of Brown and his wife, unless they feel that it cannot be refuted, it being conceded that the question as to the validity of the elec tion has been disposed of. The CHAIRMAN': I have not heard that it was conceded that the election was void. Mr. MACAULEY : The effect of the evidence, I sub mit, cannot lead to that conclusion. Unless there be a very strong refuting evidence on the other side, that ques tion, I submit, must be considered as disposed of ; and, that, therefore, there is no such reason as there would else be for not calling Mr. Turner to contradict the evi dence of Brown and his wife. Now, sir, with regard to the share which Mr. Bremner had in these transactions ; and this depends mainly ou the evidence of Grooby. That witness, the committee will recollect, was examined at great length, and he shewed himself to be a loquacious, pragmatical, and conceited man. He got into communi cation with Hatch, and, though he had some difficulty in making arrangements with him at first, ultimately he was employed. Hatch promised to get him employed as band-master to provide the bands, and so he was em ployed. Grooby says in his evidence that he made an estimate of the expenses of the band ; and, though Hatch says that he did not, there is no reason to doubt Grooby's evidence in this respect. T'ne real question is, whether what Grooby has sworn to as to the conversation between him and Bremner is disposed of sufficiently by what Hatch has stated ; it being a matter of fact directly within Bremner's knowledge, and he being the only person com petent to give a reliable contradiction. He says he was called into a room where much talking was going on, and that be was asked by Mr. Bremner to name a price at which he would provide the band, and that he named £l2 and then went out. Other parties were then called in and they named £l5, as it afterwards appeared. That he was then again called in, and was told by the chairman we will employ you to provide three bands. He says he did not know the price which had been given by the other men then, but I was told my price was very low, and that three bands would be wanted which would be £36 for forty-five men, and Bremner then said you must give us your vote and interest, and you shall have a pound a man. Hatch was by no means consistent in the answers which he gave, and he gave some accounts in regard to the band which shewed him to be an incautious and inconsistent witness, °roue who has not muchregard for truth. He under took to exonerate the committee from using party tunes. If that was the case, all that Grooby had stated must be false. Now, is it true that these tunes were forbidden ? The question is one of veracity between Hatch and Grooby. Hatch denies a good deal of what was stated at the interview. Now, my learned friend must not seek to discredit the statement of Grooby on the evidence of Hatch. It is by no means certain that Hatch has the same means of giving an account of the transaction as Grooby himself. The only material matter of fact re maining to be commented upon. is the matter of treat ing. The committee will recollect that the town is di vided into sixteen wards, and we have adduced evidence to show that treating existed in nine of those wards. The evidence shows that the treating was of a systematic nature ; that it is not treating of an accidental, casual, and venal description, but is clearly connected with the payments going on for the voters. Toxteth Ward is the only variety in the nine wards in which there is no posi tive proof of a system of treating at the central com mittee-rooms. But in that ward you have evidence of treating at the hands of Buckley, Jones, who gives an order to Evan Jones to provide a breakfast. Evan Jones carries in a bill for £26, including the payment of voters. He has admitted that he paid some twenty or thirty voters. Supposing he paid thirty of them five shillings each, that would amount to £7 10s., leaving the exorbitant sum of £lB or £l9 for treating, which was paid by Buckley Jones, the canvasser in whose hands the conveyance of voters was placed. The sum paid for treating each per son, therefore, was six or seven shillings ; and I believe during the polling day in Liverpool it might compete with, if not exceed, the drunkenness even of Glasgow. Yester day we examined a person named May, who gave most valuable testimony on that point. He said, I saw Buckley Jones before the election, at Toxteth-hall, along with the candidates. I saw them leave and go to the Royal Oak. He was seen in the district allotted to him canvassing, time after time, with the sitting members, and I think the committee will come to the conclusion that the additional evidence is amply sufficient to establish agency against him. I now come to the Lime-street Ward, in which Jonas Gleave figured so conspicuously. Jonas Gleave was the secretary. The committee was at the Derby Arms, and some subordinate rooms were also employed. There is evidence of treating at the Swan and Derby Arms. The Bee appears to have been a regular depot for voters, and Redmond says he was there on the polling day ; that Gleave was working among the voters, ordering dinners and liquors. At the Derby Arms, Gleave's own house, there was breakfast and drink on the polling day. M`Nally says he was taken to the Swan, and Gleave ordered him some spirits, which he paid for himself. Gleave then asked him to go to his own house, and he went to the Derby Arms, where be bad breakfast and drank up stairs. He went there with Mr. Bland, but at last voted for Cardwell. There can be no doubt what ever as to the agency of Gleave. If there was any ward connected with the central office more than another it was the ward in which Gleave was secretary. He was acting along with the members, and paid bills, and con ducted a great portion of the business operations of the ward himself. The next ward is Scotland Ward. The treating there was at Pyecroft's, the Wheat Sheaf, where Mr. Clegg was secretary and Mr. Watson the acting chairman. Walthew was the person who acted under Watson and assisted Clegg. This evidence is conclusive on that point, because he was sent there by Mr. Buck master on the Friday before the election with a note to Watson. He was employed for several weeks at the cen tral rooms, and paid by Mr. Buckmaster. Pyecroft states that he made out a bill against the committee which sat at his house of £.59 19s. 5d., of which he had received from 31r.Clegg £3O, and no more. The whole of that charge is for expenses incurred between the Friday and the polling day, and does not include any item for the use of his rooms. The next ward to which I will direct attention is the Vauxhall Ward. That ward was presided over by Thomas Williams, the Collector of the Constitutional Association, and the house at which the committee met was Maddison's Railway Hotel. Here we have the evidence to show that a man named Bridge, who keeps the " Organ," 'in Mary bone, had treated voters, and that the treating he gave was recognised by the central committee. No objection was made to pay him, either by Williams or Buckmaster ; and he says he expects to be paid in full. In the case of Maddison, of the Railway Hotel, he brings in a bill of £6O, of which he allots £l6 as a charge for rent, leaving £44 as the expenses of refreshments supplied on the nomination and polling days. He says he gave those re freshments, by the order of Thomas Williams, to canvas sers, cabmen, committee-men, and poll-carriers. Being asked by whom he is to be paid, he says, "That is all I want to know myself. I have been trying to discover it for the last eleven months." Then he left it to be inferred that he kept open house of his own free will ; but I am satisfied the committee must have arrived at the conclusion that he is just the sort of manwho would endeavour in every way to baffle them in prosecuting their inquiries. The ques tion is, however, if the refreshments he supplied were given to voters or not, under the nose of the committee, and upon the order of 'Williams;• and, if so, whether the sitting mem bers are not responsible for whatever then took place. I come now to St. Anne's Ward, and the " Pontack." That is pre sided over by Mr. Hatch, who describes himself as the com mittee ; and he discloses such an amount of intercourse between himself and Mr. Buckmaster, at the central committee-rooms, as to induce you to decide that you would receive evidence with regard to his acts, Clegg, the landlord of the Pontack, states that canvassers met two or three times a-week in a room in his house. He says there was no committee, that only canvassers met there, and that the room was not private. Yet, upon his examination, he admits that out of £4O, which was the amount of his bill, he charged £25 for the rent of the room. His bill was paid by Hatch. What did the can vassers order at the Pontack ? Mr. Birchall, who is a principal canvasser, invites the electors to go up stairs and get their breakfasts. That we have in the evidence of Talbot, who was present himself, partook of coffee, and saw from eighteen to twenty-four voters at breakfast there. The next ward is West Derby. In this ward the com mittee sat at the Edge-hill Coffee-house, kept by witness Marshall. Rowett was a member of that committee and Downes a paid canvasser. Downes, upon being examined, states that Watham employed him, and that Buckmaster paid him at the central-office for his services, Mr. Watham, his employer, being at the time present, and vouching for the accuracy of his account. Downes also states that there was beef, &c., laid out in the Coffee house, and, upon cross-examination. that refreshment tickets were issugd the value of Wiring each. But why they should be called " fourpenny tickets " I cannot understand ; for they were certainly not limted to that value, so far as the amount of refreshments given were concerned. He also told the committee that he had brought up voters at a distance of some miles, but he did not go on to say that the tickets were for out-voters as distinguished from town voters. Well, we find that about 400 people polled in that ward on the side of the sitting members, and the landlord tells you he cashed 531 of these tickets, that is about one and a-half for each indivi dual. Now, these tickets were distributed by the canvas sers, who were employed by the persons delegated to that duty, and whose employment was sanctioned by Mr. Buckmaster. The landlord was examined on the 13th of June, and he tells us that there was a committee-room in his house for thirteen weeks, that Watham engaged it, that he was to have five shillings a night for the room and the lights, and that his bill for the room was £8 or £O, that would be at the rate of three nights a week for the whole thirteen weeks. He says, Rowett was a committee man at this room, and Watham paid the bill of £l3 is Gd for refreshments after the election ; the other bill for re freshments, amounting to £24 odd, has not yet been paid. It was quite clear that the charge was not for the tickets, at the rate of fourpence each, which would give only about £8 7s altogether. This man, it appears, has never applied to be paid his bill ; and that of itself, I say, is a strong case to show that there is something particular in the cir cumstances of his claim. The £l3 bill, and the bill for the room, were both paid ; but the bill for refreshment, he tells you, has not been paid. He says he delivered his bill, that Watham paid the other two bills, but he did not ask him for this ; but that Watham said " he was to wait a little for that ; he would be paid, he dared say, but not just yet." Why, what was the meaning of this ? Was it not obvious that there was an understanding that the money would be paid, but not until it could be paid safely, that was after the termination of this inquiry ? The next ward he came to was Pitt-street, and here they had evidence of treating carried on at the Vine. They had the testimony of Postans, theassistant.secretary there, a paid officer of the committee, appointed by Buckmaster. Postans has proved that, on the polling-day, break fasts were provided, that there was meat and other refreshments. The Vine is a committee room, the organ of which committee is Postans, who is paid weekly by Puickmaster. We find that an order was given by Postans to cover over the tennis alley, and that in that alley, so covered over, refreshments were laid out, and that accommodation was provided for 200 voters. Then I come to St. Paul's Ward. and here we have evi dence of treating at the house of Hughes and at the house of Lancaster, both of them taverns. Lancaster says that he supplied refreshments to voters, 1111.- ntlf hill for £4. Possibly his azency is not established with suffi cient clearness to make his act the act of the sitting mem ber. He says, " I gave the bill to Mr. Briscoe, the chairman, and he paid me at the rate of thirteen shillings in the pound for it." " The £4 was not all for refresh ments supplied on the polling day. Some of it was for treating people when I was going round on my canvass." On his cross-examination, he said, " Briscoe told me that refreshments were not allowed ;" but he admits " that after the election Briscoe asked him whether he had any claim." Why what claim could he have had except for refreshments supplied to the voters ? And if he supplied them, as he said, of his own accord, how did it happen that Mr. Briscoe asks him if he has any claim ? that he takes in his bill to Mr. Briscoe, and that that gentleman pays him thirteen shillings in the pound ? With regard to Hughes he says, " There were refreshments provided : tea, coffee, and meat laid- out in a room up stairs. I cannot say by whom, now, these were supplied." But it appears he made out his bill, and pressed Briscoe and Vaughan for payment ; and a month afterwards he saw Briscoe, who said, on being asked for the money, that he could not let him have it then. In December it appeared Vaughan paid him thirteen pounds, which was about the same proportion of thirteen shillings in the pound that the others had been paid ; and in Feb bruary, being pressed for money to pay rent and taxes,. he asks Briscoe to oblige him with £ll, which Briscoe gives him, but tells him he must look upon it as a loan. I have no doubt that when the £l3 was paid, as well as when the £ll was paid, Briscoe said something like this, You must not look upon this as payment of your bill, but a mere loan to assist you out of your difficulties, but you must write " settled" upon the bills, and let me have them, and say as little about the matter as possible to anybody. And this much is at all events clear, that having got the man to write settled upon the bills he kept them. The next case of treating is that in Great George's ward. In that ward there were two treating houses, Great George Tavern and the Letters-Tavern. Mr. Lawson is the land lord of the Great George Tavern, and Mr. Gibson was the secretary of the committee. Lawson charged £5O. He says, of that sum £3O were paid for refreshments, and about £5 of that on the polling day. MiNally went there and had some rum, and Gibson gave him some ale with his own hands. Gibson did not contradict the statement. Lawson said there were joints of meat provided. He made out his bill. The evidence of Quaile as to treating is quite conclusive. He says he was a canvasser, and voters were regaling themselves in the lower part of the house until the poll was over. He says, " I gave one voter a drink of beer, and the other canvasser along with me paid for it as a matter of course." Gibson admits the bill to have been a reasonable one. It was taken from him to Buckmaster. It was then taken to Mr. Bold, who said he could not pay it ; but nothing has transpired to show that it was not a temporary answer to suit the occasion, and to avoid any difficulty which might have arisen from an immediate payment. In that case there cannot exist the least doubt of Gibson's agency. Then there is the case of the Letters Tavern, where the charge is somewhat extravagant in its amount. Mr. Harrison, the landlord, tells Mr.Wagstaff that he can- get the sailmakers together. He tells Mr. Wagstaff that he-means voting, and treating, and paying. And what does Mr. Wagstaff say ? I'll have nothing to do with it; you must use your own dis cretion. It is quite clear the meanino of Mr. Wagstaff was this : I authorize you to act upon your own discre tion. Harrison goes to Gibson's committee-room, and, in consequence of what there takes place, he appoints a large number of colourmen, who get refreshments at his house, and are paid £lO by him. He makes out a bill of £7O. He pays £lO to the flagmen and five shillings each. to certain voters, and the rest is for eating and guzzling,. I say that he had authority from Mr. Wagstaff, and acted under that impression. Mr. Harrison says that Mr. Gib son is annoyed at the amount of his bill, but in every respect it is dealt with in the same way as Mr. Lawson's bill. It is our desire to enforce upon you the conviction that the case which we have been able to adduce is not only one which goes to the validity of the parliamentary return, but is one which, by strong presumption, esta blishes the conclusion that there is an extensive system of bribery and corruption in the constituency of Liverpool. The fact of treating in the nine wards, accompanied by the system of paying five shillings ; the fact of the existence of houses as centres from which the voters should go, at which houses it is notorious food and drink and five shillings could be had by those who were base enough and drunk enough to accept it, show that the constituency of Liver pool, in part, at least, is in a most unsatisfactory state and we think the evidence which has been given is enough to establish the facts, not only in the sense in which it was intended to establish them, but that it is quite suffi cient to show that the system pointed out is the prevalent system ; and we are anxious to call your particular at. tention to the statutary provisions under which it will be your duty to consider what recommendations you may think it necessary to present to the house other than the resolutions necessary upon the particular allegations con tained in the petition. At the conclusion of the learned gentleman's address, which occupied nearly four hours, Mr. FRESTIFIELD jocu larly observed that he was not yet qualified to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the indispensable qualifications for which office appeared to be that its occu pant should speak for at least five hours. (Laughter). The committee then adjourned until Monday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, SATURDAY, JUNE 18 THE LIVERPOOL. ELECTION.—The SERJEANT-AT ARMS informed the house, at half-past three, a.m., that, pursuant to their order of 16th instant, he had taken John Williams into his custody at Liverpool, but that his state of health was such as to render his removal danger ous. Mr. INGHAM, the chairman of the Committee on the Liverpool Election Petition. also informed the house that the evidence of John Williams was no longer essen tdiiaele.harTgheed outhouse f t t h h e e n o cu r e d to e r d ed , y 0 f t h t a h t John e serie a N n i'l t. i l a t i a ..A ras be rms, without payment of his tees. (FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.) MONDAY, JUNE 20, DEFENCE OF THE SITTING. MEMBERS. The Committee re-assembled to-day at eleven o'clock Mr. JAMES proceeded at once to address the committee on behalf of the sitting members. He said—lt is a matter of congratulation to the sitting members that we at length know the character of the case which has been brought against them, because for many weeks prior to the opening of this inquiry, there were rumours abroad, conversations in clubs, articles in newspapers, and every possible pub licity given to attacks upon the sitting members, in refe rence to some large system of corruption which was al leged to have prevailed at the last election in Liverpool. I congratulate the sitting members that the matter has assumed something like a tangible shape, and that we now know with what we have to deal. My friend, Mr. Macaulay, has claimed credit for the petitioners, because, 1 as he says, they have not been actuated by party spirit, but solely by a desire to maintain the purity of the borough of Liverpool, and because their only object is to obtain from the committee some special resolution with reference to the corruption and bribery which prevailed at the last election. Now really, looking at the character of the case which has been made out in evidence, I would like to knew what kind of resolution my learned friends on the other side expect at the hands of the committee. 1 venture to sub mit to the committee—and I will prove what I say before I have done—that if the sole object of the pe::',loners was to obtain a special resolution of the committee with re ference to the system of bribery and corruption prevailing at the last election, the whole case has utterly failed. A violent attack has been made upon the freemen of Liver pool, and although Mr. Macaulay did not put it distinctly and specifically before you, yet he i.la;nly indica'..2.l that he wished the ccrarci,tee to come to some resolution for the temporary disFranc%isenaent of one of the largest and most impotlant constituencies in England. My learned friend, Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, in introducing this ruse, referred to former occasions. He alluded to proceedings of a commission of the House of Commons which had failed in the House of Lords, to an Act of Parliament which, he said, had passed one branch o: the legislature, but which did not receive the sanction of the other branch, for the disfranchisement of the freemen of Liverpool. Well, it appears from the documents referred to by Mr. Seijeant Kinglake, that at a former electron the number (If freemen bribed was 2,661 ; and the argument of my learned friend was, that the system of /RUM', AO or, ruption which existed then was in full force at the last election, and that, in fact, upon the latter occasion, the bribery was only limited by the number of freemen in the borough. Now, let us see what has been proved in evi dence. Why the whole amount of pecuniary bribery—if I may use such a term—which Las been proved to have taken place among about 2,000 freemen is exactly £l2 6s. Gd., giving my learned friends credit for £l, to which I do not think they are really entitled. This mighty case, therefore, about which so much has been said, and which, according to Mr. Macaulay, calls for the temporary disfranchisement of the large and important borough of Liverpool, has dwindled down to a question of £l2 Gs. Gd., so far as the freemen are con cerned, and of £l9O expended, not by the sitting mem bers, but by independent parties, in what my learned friends on the other side chose to term treating among a constituency of 14,000 persons. Such are the groundS upon which Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, after referring to the bribery and corruption which existed at former elections, calls for a special resolution of the committee for the temporary disfranchisement of Liverpool. I would like to know what more would be the special resolution which my learned friend would propound to the committee. Is it to be a resolution setting forth that, whereas at a former election 2,601 freemen were bribed by an expendi ture of thousands; at the last election there were forty-one persons out of a constituency of 14,000 who received ss. each, not according to any usage or practice coming within the penal clause of an act of parliament, but according to a system prevailing in Liverpool of allowing workmen a holiday without depriving them of their wages. But is it here that the sole object of the petitioners is to maintain the purity of the borough ? My learned friends on the' other side have had the whole materials in their own hands. Witnesses were at the very door of the commit tee-room who would have told us much more than the witnesses who have been examined ; but my learned friends have not ventured to call them. Why ? Because they would have coupled with their evidence for the petitioners a complete exoneration of the sitting members, anti ~uuld hayr gruuutl Burin EMS case into even lee. than its present miserable proportions . No party spirit dictated this petition ! Look at the cross-examination of Mr. Rath bone, a name somewhat implicated in the corrupt expen penditure at former elections ; for it is well the com mittee should remember that the system to which Mr. Sergeant Kinglake has referred as prevailing at prior elections in Liverpool, did not originate with the Con servatives, but with the Liberal party, and that some members of Mr. Rathbone's family were largely impli cated in it. Now, look at that case about the Post Officee It was not right for my friends to bring forward such a case, without being certain that they could prove the allegations which they made—allegations affecting not merely the sitting, members, but an important depart , went of the public service. The Post Office servants' were at the door of the committee-room, and it would have been only just that they should have been called as' witnesses, in order to exonerate themselves and the sitting members, against whom the charge was made. This matter was clearly introduced not for the purpose of prejudicing the minds of the committee, but of pre judicing the public aginst Messrs. Turner and Mackenzie in the course of this inquiry ; and Isay it was most unjust that the only persons who could haveexplained the whole matter, and wha were in the lobby during the inquiry, were not called as- witnesses in the case. Yet they say that no party spirit dictated these proceed ings, but that the inquiry originated in a desire to vindicate the purity of election in the borough of Liverpool. Is that an instance of it ? I say such a charge, having been publicly made, ought to have been as publicly withdrawn by the petitioners. Now, before I come to the enormous• mass of evidence with which this table groans, let me clear away those cases that have not been proved at all. There are no less than 43 cases (involving , charges against gentlemen of the highest honour, and merchants of the town of Liverpool), in respect of which not a tittle of evidence has been offered. These gentlemen were actually said to have been bribed—a statement which, I. believe, constitutes a libel in point of law, and for which I hope the gentlemen who put it forward will some day be made responsible ; then there was the supplemental list, which the com mittee will remember was put forward with great osten tation, and which it took no less than two days to pre pare. This list comprised 19 cases ; not , one of these was proved ; evidence was- offered in one case—that of the witness Orme—which, so far from proving to be an instance of bribery, was olearly shown. to be a case of bond fide employment. Then, there is the case of Bar nett and three others, in which no attemptat proof has been made, and which was not even opened-or alluded to by my friend Seijeant Kinglake. But, in the class of cases not proved, the most disgraceful, involving as it does the personal honour of Mr. Forbes Mackenzie , is that in which several persons were said to have been bribed by that hon. member. This case, with the greatest wantof that fairnesss which usually regulates- the proceedings of public journalists, was made public- on a Sunday in a very widely circulated journal. Of course the petitioners cannot be responsible for any breach of the etiquett e o f the press but certainty, I tntmc more caution shouts nave been exercised, fcr the publication of such an exparte list, reflecting upon the personal honour of Mr. Mackenzie, was a most cruel proceeding. There was clearly not the slightest pretence for the accusation that had been made. The witness, John Dimsdale, was examined on the point, and stated most positively that he did not apply for employ ment till after the election, and that nothing was said about it before. There is one incident in the case which I think is very remarkable, and which throws great light upon many ot these transactions. I allude to the evidence of Grooby, Brown, and Cannell. I ask, had they any means of discovering that the charges against Mr.. Mac kenzie were without the shadow of foundation. They could easily have ascertained, and probably these who are in office now would not have been very loth to- give the required information, as to whether the man in, question actually obtained the situation or not ; and before such a charge was made they should have ascertained, with cer tainty, whether the situation was given in order.to bribe the voter. The man, it had been proved, never had the situation at all. And how was this case conducted ? When the witness was examined, we produced the letter which was written about the employment, and Mr. Bodkin, notwithstanding the extreme fairness of his general course of proceeding, declined to accept it and put it in evidence, as though we were engaged, in a most petty nisi prius case, where the object is only to get the verdict, and where there is no question of personal character or honour. Mr. EDDKIN : I do not remember that any such appli cation was made to me. The CHAIRMAN : The date of the letter was the only material point ; and the benefit of that was secured, it having been shown that the letter was written after the election, but not before. Mr...lames I do not wish to throw any imputation upon my learned friend ;. but I repeat that, if the question was really one of character and of purity of election, that letter should have been received and put in as evidence by the. petitioners. Now, in the case of Kissack, there has been no attempt at proof. They have not proved, even, the existence of an individual ; and, for aught we know, he may be nothing more than a myth. I ask, then, whe ther these charges, unsubstantiated as they have proved yl :a k et le e Buckley a Jones n d r e s ; p e a c r d a b t m y to be, were not levelled against the Secretary of the Trea sury of the late government ? Amongst the other cases not proved were those of Freres Rankin and Chas. Smith, All an son and Charles Cale, said to have been bribed by a tw ll o eg g e e d n t t o hlemaevne of f ee t n bribed hehighesbt ci Mr. Thomas Fleetwood Roskelt. and Mr. George Henry, Horsfall. Allanson was_shown,to have received ss. 6d. for fitting up the committee-room- Mr. Horsfall was in the lobby for. the purpose of ' being identified, but he was never called by the petitioners, so that he, might have an opportunity of exonerating himself. Having alluded to the cases in which no proof has been attempted, will now approach those in which attempted proof has been, offered. I. do not propose to enter into minute details, but to glance at the most salient and pro minent points of the case. Following the order chosen by Mr. Macaulay, I will, take successively the questions of bribery, treating, and. agency. From the analysis which, we have made, it appears that evidence was given.of the receipt of ss. in 41 instances, of 10s. in the case of Connell, of 12s. fid. in the case of Turner; of the promise, by the hon. member, Mg. Turner, of a situation to. Bathurst Brown ; and of the receipt of £l5 by Grooby for his hand. These are the cases with which we are to deal. These are the proportions into which this mighty case has dwindled. And now let me approach the question whether these cases constitute bribery or not, either by common law or statute law. Let me refer first to the case of Mr. Buckley Jones's men, and to, the evidence offered by Mr. Fisher, the fore man and overlooker. Let us see upon what ground Mr. Macaulay puts the case. Is it bribery under the statute George 11., bribery under the common law, or bribery under Lord John Russell's act ? It can only be dealt with as coming under Lord John Russell's act, with refe rence to the payment of head money and the committee are asked to put into force a penal statute not merely against individuals, but against that which is said to be the corrupt system of the borough of Liverpool. But in order to bring the case within the act to whch have alluded, two propositions must be made out. The money must be given on behalf of the candidates, on account of the vote, and in compliance with some corrupt usage and practice of the borough, as is ex plained by the 20th section of the act. The Durham and the Derby cases were the foundation of that section. In Derby there had been fer a long period a custom cf paying " head money," and in Durham, I believe. it was called " basket money." These were customs and habits of the borough, the money being given to the voters on account of their votes. But how does the matter stand in the present case ? I say, that the majority of the instances which have been brought before us afford no illustration whatever of any usage or corrupt practice in the boroug4; but they are illustrations of a practice existing in parti - , cular large establishments, dock and timber yards , ( 1 giving them (the workmen) s s. on the occasion 0 ' elections. This may be a practice which you ra9 r . c:.-ndemn ; it is a practice you may report against but it cannot be brought within the highly petal provisions of this act of Parliament, and thus can not have the effect of unseating the members, One of the witnesses positively stated that the ss. had no influen ce whatever upon his vote, and that he should have taken e t as an insult had it been offered to him for that porpt e No corrupt bargain has been established, and the pra ctic e is one that exists in particular establishments. A h ol idayction; was given to the men on the occasion of the e l e ctio n; _ and certainly it cannot be considered a holiday if th au rf f do not receive their wages. Mr. Fisher. the foreman to Mr. Luckley Jones's men, said a holiday ccs e f_ tion s, voters and non-voters at municipal and general w 1; and that he found the men were pleased with it an d it. d worke I re all the better in consequence of having F t h e provisions ask can such a practice be brought within taf yearlY r of Lord John Russell's act ? Take the case ott monthly hiring at the end Qf year or aMg Y