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

penditure at former elections ; for it is well the com-
shoull 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, anti that some
members of Mr. Rathbone's family were largely impil-

cated in it. Now, look at that case about the Pest Office•
It was not right for my friends to bring forward such a
thont being certain that they- could prove the
allegation which they made—allegations affecting not
merely the sitting members, but an important depart-
ment 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, irt- order to exonerate theroselves 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 ib tkriry ; and I say it was most unj'est
that the only persons who could have explained the whole

_ .
matter, and who 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: I§ that an instance of it ?' say
such a charge, having been publicly made, ought to have
been as publicly withdrawn by the petitioners. Note.
before I come to the enernous mass of evidence with
which this table groans, let me clear away those cases
that have not been proved 'et all. There are no less than.
33 cases (involving chargcee 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 &
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 lees than two days to pre-
pare. This list comprised cases ; not one of these
was proved ; evidence was offered in one case—that of
the witness- Orme—which, so fan from proving to be en'
instance of bribery, was clearly shown to be a case Os.
boncifirk 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 Serjeant Kinglake. But, in the class of eases,
not proved, the most disgraceful, involving as it does thee
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 want
of that fairnesss which usually regulates the proceedings'
of public journalists, was made public on a Sunday in li-
very widely circulated journal. Of. coarse the petitioners,
cannot be responsible for any breach of the etiquette Of"
the press.; but certainly, I think nitu.re caution should have
been exercised, for the publication of such an exparte listQ
reflecting upon the personal honour of Mr. Mackenzie,
was a most cruel proceeding. There was clearly not the
slightest ?retenee for the accusation that had been made.
The witness, John Dimsdale, wile-examined on the point,
and stated most positively that he did not apply for employr
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 manyof these transactions. I allude to the evidence
of Grooby, Brown, and Grinnell,. I ask, had they anY
means of discovering that the charges against Mr. Mac-
kenzie were without the shadaw of foundation. They
could easily have ascertained, and probably those who are
in office now would not have been very loth to give the
requireil 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 ;toe given in order to bribe
the voter.. The man, it had been proved, never had the
situation at all. And how was this case coaducted
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 prins
case, where the object is only teget the verdict,,and where
there is no question of personal character or honour.

Mr. BODKIN : I do not remember that any auch appli-
cation was made to me.

The CHAIRMAN : The date of the letter was the only.
material point ; and the heneSt of that was secured, it
having been shown that the letter was written after the
election, but not before.

Mt. JAMES : I do not wish to throw any ineputatiote
uporemy 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. Nov, 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-knoce,
he may be nothing more than a myth. I; ask, then, whe-
ther these charges, unsubstantiated as they. have- p,roved
to be, were not levelled against the Secretary cf the Trea-
sury of the late government ? Amongst the other: cases
not proved were those of Freres Ranidn and Chase Smiths
alleged to have been bribed by Bucklay,Jones ;. and. Wm.
Allanson and CharlereCale, said to have been bribed by
two gentlemen of tho highest character and respectability,
Mr. Thomas Fleetwood Roskell and Mr. George Henry
Horsfall. Allansorewas shown to have. received. 3s. 6d.
for fitting up the committee-room '-.Mr. Hsrsfall was in
the lobby for the purpose of being identified, but
he was never called by the eetitionerse so that be
might have an opportunity of exonerating himself.
Having alluded to the cases in which noproof has been
attempted, I will, now approach those in which attempted
proof has been offered. I do not propose re enter into
minute details,. but to glance at the most. sahient and pro-
minent points of the case. Following the order chosen
by Mr. Macrealay, 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 Zs. in 41 instances, of 10s. Lathe case of Connell,.
of 12s. 6d. in the case of Turner ; of the promise, by the-
hon. member, Mr. Turner, of a situation to Bathurst
Brown ; and of the receipt of £1.5. by Grooby for his band.,
These are the cases with which '7,10 are to deal. These are
the proportions into which this mighty case has dwindled.
And now let me approach the question whether these (Ave
constitute bribery or not, either by eornenen law or statute
law. Let me refer first to the case of Mr. Buckley Jonee6
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. le it bribery under the. statute
George 11., bribery under the common law, or bribery
under Lerd John Ruseell'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 vilich
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 sopa°
corrupt usage and practice of the borough, as is e°,l-
- by the 20th section of the act. The Durham et
the Derby eases were the foundation of that section. ".
Derby there had been for a long period a custom of paY,l,ll
" head money," and in Durham, I believe, it was cello
" basket money." These were. customs and habits of t t
borough, the money being given to the voters on aec011,.130
of their votes. But how does the matter stand in t'eo
present case ? I say, that the majority of the instal,
e been brought before us afford on illustratin

which have

vLatever of any usag

t practice it

but th

illtnstratio

cular large

!stablishrc

existing in psrt

)11 1118'

gt
report gatrino.