The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-14 00:00:00

,WYFOI St-TuR"

were still rampant is the country ; and argued that the
sympathies of the legislature shrink' be enlarged to Table
it to deal with those questions. •
The dacuasion was continued in a rapidly thinuihil-
home by
Mr. LIDDELL, who, while allowing that the bill taken
by itself might, in some respects, be called moderate, se-
berted that in its effect on the county representation it was
insidiously destructive. He maintained that the working
classes were already largely represented, and for their
further representation he avowed a preference for each de-
vices as the savings-bank franchise, which raised them to
the franchise rather than lowered the franchise to them.
He opposed the bill as calculated to delay a satisfactory
settlement
When Mr. Liddell at down some half-dozen members
rose in • cluster on the ministerial benches to follow him,
from whom the Speaker selected
Mr. HANG Y, who, ea a large employer of labour
and the representative of a constituency (Middlesex)
which would be much affected by the bill, supported it as
consonant with the spirit of the times, and justasel by the
requirements of the worldng classes.
Mr. SELWYN denounced the bill as a disturbance of the
balance of political power, and destructive of agricultural
representation.
Sir F. GOLDSMID vindicated the course pursued by
the government, and combated some of the arguments of
Lmd tanley.
Lord R. MONTAGU expressed his belief that the bill
was a farce, never intended by its authors to be passed,
and quoted numerous contradictory and irreconcilable
passages from speeches of Mr. Gladstone to show that he
was unworthy of confidence as a leader on so vital •
question.
Sir G. GREY commented on the language of the reso-
lution and the speeches by which it had been supported,
characterising it aa vague and ambiguous, and contrasting
it with Lord Russell's resolution of 1850, which contained
a decided principle, and pledged parliament to a reduction
of the borough franchise. In tracing the history of the
bill of 1860, and the subsequent course of Lord Palmer-
ston's government in regard to reform, he provoked much
merriment and ironical cheering from the opposition, and
was as loudly applauded by his own supporters, when he
declared that the bill was not so much a boon to the work-
ing-claases as an advantage to the whole community, by
admitting them to a more direct share in the representa-
tion. After contending that the majority of the oppoi-
tion, by their speeches cad their election addresses, were
pledged to reform, he vindicated the mode of proceeding by
separate bills as beetcelculated to lead to a practical and
satisfactory settlement, and explained that the main
object WWI to admit to the franchise as large • portion of
the working class as possible without overwhelming other
classes. While allowing that the redistribution of seats
was a vital portion of reform, he contended that this bill
by itself was • valuable step in advance, and having shown
how impracticable was the suggestion to settle the ques-
tion by • commission or a committee of the Privy Council,
Sir George concluded an effective and spirited address by
calling on the house to resist an amendment which warn
equivalent to an indefinite postponement of reform.
Mr. LAING denied that the amendment meant any-
thing but that reform ought to be treated in a comprehen-
sive spirit, and redistribution, he asserted, ought to be,
and bad on every previous occasion been, considered an
indispensable portion of • reform bill. Though not attri-
buting great wet to the pledges of which so much had
been made, he allowed that the settlement of reform was
inevitable, and defined the problem to be to admit the
working classes without giving them preponderance—the
difficulty 'rising not from their want of morality
or intelligence, but from their overwhelming num-
bers. This, he contended, the government had made
no attempt to solve. He quoted from Mr. Bright's
speeches to illustrate the ulterior ends of the democratic
school, and, after a short digression in eulogy of the re-
formed parliament, made a vigorous attack on the bill,
dwelling specially on its one-sidedness, its want of checks
and balances, and the uniformity of its suffrage. After a
careful analysis of Mr. Gladstone's statistics as to the
income and taxation of the working classes, showing that
they made a fancy franchise of the consumption of beer
and tobacco, he predicted that under • democratic consti-
tution the hard-won victories of free trade and non-inter-
vention would not long be safe, and earnestly exhorted the
moderate liberals not to prefer party to their country's
interests.
On the motion of Mr. ?Lianas the debate was ad-
journed at twelve o'clock.
The Cattle, lac. Contagious Diseases Bill and the Cattle
Sheds in Burghs (Scotland) Bill were severally read a third
time and passed.
THE LONDON (CITY) CORPORATION GAS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. CRAWFORD, the following mem-
bers were nominated the select committee on Landoll
(City) Corporation Gas Bill :—Mr. Hastings Russell, Mr.
Dutton, Mr. Woods, Colonel North, Mr. Morrison and
Mr. Westropp.
The house adjourned at • quarter past 12 o'clock.

ELECTION COMMITTEE.

Maness ; I told hiss it for fun. The paper says that Ida
not wish it to be known, as I had private reasons of my
own with regard to Mr. Smith. I did not know that that
Was isi the statement..
Cross-examined—l voted for Mr. Richardson because
Joys never brought me the Si., and I would not vote for
Mr. Gower without. I was canvassed for Mr. Monson, but
did not promise. There was a meeting at which the state-
ment was signed. Mr. Gilbert read it over. It is untrue
as regards Mr. Smith. It is true as to Mr. Joys. Mr.
grooer.
"Rat: lids—l am a groom, and reside at Reigate. Am
a voter. Before the last election I was employed as mes-
senger by Mr. Monson. I was paid by the week. On the
day of the nomination Alexander Rose called on me. He
asked me to vote for Mr. Gower, end said if I would I
should have 51. James Ede was present. I voted for Mx.
Gower. About two months afterwards saw Frederick Joys,
and asked for the money which Rose bad promised me. He
gave me 21. Since then some one sent me another pound.
My son brought it me.
Cross-examined—l am groom to Mr. Gray, who is a te-
nant of Mr. Monson's farm. I was employed by Mr.
Monson's people at the election three or four weeks. Ido
not know how much I got for that. I received 10a. for a
week. I claimed for four weeks. I had been employed by
Gower's people before for five weeks, doing anything they
wished me.
Re-examined—The agreement that I had with Gower's
people was that my money should come up to Si.
John Farringdon—l am a labourer, and am a voter for
Reigate. I voted at the last election for Mr. Gower. Mr.
Rose canvassed me. Joys asked me to vote for Mr. Gower,
and promised me 51. After the election he gave me 3/. I
never got any more. Mr. Rose had before then offered me
31. I would not take any notice of that. I remember
being at Muddle's beerhouse with about 40 electors. Mr.
Joys was in the chair. We bad all something to drink.
He paid for it. I signed a statement.
Cross-examined—l was not employed as a messenger.
Mr. Gilbert came to me since the election. Before this
Mr. Naylor, of Parliament-street, called on me and left a
card. Ido not know that be is a Mr. Hamblin, of Shore-
ditch. He represented himself as Mr. Gower's agent. He
said I was to go to the White Hart to he paid. I did
not go, as I was told it was no use. The receipt pro-
duced is for 31. 12s. I only received 2/. and 11. ; the
21. a week after the election, and IL about a month
afterwards.

--- -The voters went to Mr. Naylor to get the
money ; and that was how they came to sign the state-
ment.
The reosipt was read. It purported to be a receipt for
31. 125., for work done.
Is there one word of truth in that paper, that you did
an work at the election!--1 never did.
James App., labourer, of Reigate—l voted for Monson.
Saw Mr. Gower in the presence of Mr. Smith and Mr.
Joys. Mr. Nowlin offered me money to vote for Mr.
Gower.

---
James Peters—l am a gardener, and an elector of Rei-
gate. Mr. Job Apted canvassed me. I afterwards saw
Job Apted in the presence of Mr. Gower. Mr. Gower,
Apted, Smith, and Buckland canvanied me. Saw Job
Apted and F. Joys afterwards at the White Hart. I
went to the Town-hall, and afterwards told Joys to put
my name on the committee. Before then Job Apted
offered me 41. to work for Mr. Gower. I was to have it If
we won the battle. I got 21. I remember going to the
Bell. We had all some drink there. I have no idea who
paid. Was at the Black Hone. Mr. Roes was in the
chair. Ido not know who paid there.
Cross-examined by Mr. J amea—Apted asked me if I
could do anything for them, to work for them, and I pro-
mised that I would. I told Mr. Gilbert about this. Cotton
asked me to go to him. I got nothing for giving the
information. I had no particular cause for giving the in-
formation. I did it for the good of the whole concern.
Re-examined—l did nothing for my 41. particular, ex-
cept asking a few friends of mine for their votes.
James Bonny—l am a confectioner at Reigate. I was
canvassed by Mr. Gower, Mr. Smith, and Mr Rose. I
resollect having a lbeAl arm. About three weeks before the
election Rose came to me and asked if I would work for
Mr. Gower. I said, No, I could not get about. He offered 30e.
a week, as he said I was a good worker. He offered me 51.
to vote for Mr. Gower. I voted for him. I cannot say
that I should have voted for him if I bad not expected the
5/. I never got.
Cray-examined—You seem quite angry about that'—
Yes, I am, and think I have reason. (Laughter.) If I
had been paid I should not have "bothered." I voted for
Wilkinson at the former elections, and should again. I was
paid for work I did for Mr. Wilkinson. I should have
taken the money if I could have got it whether I had
worked for it or not. I did not apply to any one for the
money. We were to be paid when Mr. Gower took his
seat.
The time hes not come for you to be paid'—No, and
never will apparently.
Re-examined—l heard of others applying and not being
able to get it. It was a great deal talked about at Rei-
gate. Nothing else was talked about at one time.

- -
James Mall—l am a gardener, and an elector for Rei-
gate. I voted for (lower. Job Apted and Rockland can-
vassed me, and said they would pay me the same as the
other men were paid. I attended • meeting at the
Town-hall. Mr. Gower was there, and said every man
who worked for him should be paid well. After the elec-
tion I went to Mr. C. J. Smith, and asked him to settle
for the election. He said I was to go to Job Apted, or to
Mr. Rockland. I went to Apted, who gave me Ma., and
said more would be paid afterwards.
- -

Cross-examinedl was to be paid for doing work, and
attending at the committee-rooms. The only work I did
was to go to the public-houses and drink. (Laughter.)
When I went to• Hr. Ajted I asked him to be paid for the
work I had done. I think I told him I had worked for six
weeks.

Re-examined—The amonnt that was to be paid to me
altogether was never mentioned.
•

George Jupp, carpenter, Reigate—l voted for Gower at
the last election. I remember seeing Henry Green at
the committee-room about a week before the polling day.
He said if I would go with them again he would give me
the same he had given before. I said I would. He
has given me 101. before for voting and canvassing.
I have seen Mr. Green give money to George Boom
at this election. I went to the Warwick Arms about
• week before the election. There were 40 or 50 d us.
We had all drink. I had plenty. I did not pay.
Cross-examined—l had voted for Mr. Gower on a farmer
occasion. I got another vote. That was in 1863. I attended
from time to time at the committee-room. Mr. Gower's
committee-rooms ware not at public houses. I have sot re-
ceived any money.
The committee then adjourned.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Lush.)

William Ball, 20 years of age, and described as being a
mason, was indicted for feloniously and maliciously
wounding John Hill, on the 21st February, with intent to
kill and murder him. In a second oount the intent was
alleged to be to do grievous bodily harm. The prosecutor
is the landlord of the Alleyn's Arms at Dulwich, and the
prisoner was in his service as potboy. On the night in
question, Mr. Hill had turned off the gas in the cellar
upon the conclusion of business, when he received three
blows on the head from some heavy instrument, and the
evidence adduced seemed to lead to the conclusion that the
prisoner bad struck those blows.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty of wounding with
intent to do grievous bodily harm.
The prisoner, when called up for sentence, said—My
lord, I am not guilty.
Mr. Justice Lush said that the jury, after a most patient
investigation, and after paying the utmost attention to
the evidence adduced before them, had found him guilty
of the minor offence charged in the indictment, though
the evidence would have justified them in convicting him
of the graver offence. It was well for the prisoner that
Providence had spared the life of his master, for if the act
the prisoner bad committed had terminated in death,
nothing could have saved him from the gallows. The
crime of which be stood convicted was of the most atrocious
character. The prisoner had no cause of complaint. He
was in the service of a master he was bound to protect,
and without any apparent motive he bad committed this
most atrocious crime. It was a very grave offence, and
the sentence of the court was that he be kept in penal
servitude for fifteen years.