The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-10-06 00:00:00

REFORM ASSOCIATION-EXTRAORDIN ARY DECISION
. . .

Christopher Harrison, reformer, of Beacon-row;Llled.
He was a labourer subject to the payment of Ils. 6d. rates.
Those rates, he said, he paid, but he refused, by the advice
of Mr. James, to tell where he got the money from. The
question was put several times, but he remained silent. Mr.
Harvey desired him to reply, when he declared that he could
not say that he earned the money by his labour ; did not think
he earned it, but would not say where he got the money ; be-
lieved it was paid from the Reform Association—(cheers,
mingled with hisses, and cries of " Silence !")—paid the rates
himself ; a person went with him at the time to pay them ;
that person's name was John Winstanley ; went on two oc-
casions to pay them ; the second time he went Mr. Pritchard
accompanied him; had the money the first time, but it was
refused to be taken by Mr. Shaw, as it was not the full
amount ; returned then to Mr. Pritchard, but did not get the
money from that gentleman ; got it from Mr. John Jones, a
stonemason, whom he met close to his own house in Everton ;
Jones came to him, and he went to Jones; Jones came to
him in the first instance and lent him the money; gave no
security or acknowledgment for it; never paid it back since.
Mr. WILKINS thought the present an attempted evasion
of the requirements of the legislature. It was clear the money
was given to the man to pay his rates, and, if given, it was
bribery ; if it was lent, then he hoped a similar line of con-
duct would be adopted by the court as was adopted by the
revising barristers throughout the country—namely., that
when they found a party admitting that money was given to
him to pay his rates they treated it as a nullity of the reform
act, and to call such a transaction as was deposed to here a
loan, was a farce too contemptible to be entertained by any
rational mind for a single moment. He (the learned counsel)
did not know how others felt, but if he had been the instru-
ment of placing that old man, who had just been underexa-
mination, in the box, instead of saying that it was he did it,
he would have hid himself from society. He did not wish to
throw his feelings into the case, but being only a man he con-
fessed that when he saw the wretched being, hesitating be-
tween truth and falsehood—hesitating, prevaricating, and
quivering with agitation—he did regret that political feeling
and faction should so far get the upperhand of an individual's
better nature as to induce him to say that it was he did it.
To call such a thing as this a loan was worse than a mockery.
Mr. JAMES said that his learned friend had thrown away
much of his eloquence to no effect. The strong language em-
ployed was irrelevant to the point at issue. The question
was, whether the witness was entitled by law to have his name
on the register, he having paid the money for his rates, as
appeared in evidence. There was no fraud whatever proved
against him, and if people were not to be permitted to pay
any debt with borrowed money, even the commercial tran-
sactions of the country would be rendered null and void. He
put several hypothetical cases in point in support of his
opinion.

Mr. WILKINS responded, urging that the money given to
a man so destitute could not be considered other than a bribe,
which was a contraversion of the law, and went to disqualify
the witness as a voter. It was a direct violation of the spirit
of the act of parliament.

The arguments on both sides being heard, the Court ad-
journed at a quarter-past one until two o'clock, when the
proceedings were resumed.

Mr. WRIGHT then said, so far as he was concerned he
would not permit any one to vote who had not paid his rates
bona fide himself. In this case Mr. Jones was decidedly a
mere volunteer in the matter. The act of payment was any-
thing but that of the party defending his vote, to which he
did not conceive him entitled.

Mr. HARVEY said that the party procured the money to
pay his rates ; and no matter whether it were a gift or a loan,
as no fraud was proved, he considered the party entitled to
his vote.

It was then decided by the Mayor and Mr. Harvey that
the vote should be allowed.

Mr. WILKINS requested the Mayor to take a note of the
fact, as it was probable that the case would be brought into
a superior court.
Mr. HARVEY said that was the proper place to take it
to, if the parties were not satisfied. He, and those who
acted with him, could only be guided by the act as it then
stood.

ALLEGED CASE OF BRIBERY

Mr. WILKINS then rose again and said---4 have an appli-
cation now to make to the court. It is this--that the calling
of all the parties in Everton Ward, as well as in St. Paul's,
and another ward or two, upon whom notices have been
served by a man of the name of Johnson, and also by a man
of the name of Thurtell, may be postponed to the end of the
list. .

Mr. WRIGHT.—State the grounds of your application.
Mr. WILKINS.—I will, though I would rather not; how-
ever, as lam compelled so to do, I must. I unhesitatingly
aver, then, that Johnson, a man who has served notices for
us in Everton Ward, and also another of the name of Thur-
tell, have been paid sums of money by members of the other
party to quit this town ; and I am also prepared to show that
no less a sum than £2OO was offered to another of the par-
ties connected with us, and who served notices for us, to
prevail on him also to quit the town.
Mr. HARVEY.—If you prove the two first cases, it will be
unnecessary for you to go into the third.
Mr. WI LKINS.—So far as Johnson and Thurtell are con-
cerned, I can prove that they have been thus treated infer-
entially.

The'DEPUTY TOWN-CLERK (to the mayor)—That won't
do.
Mr. WILKINS.—I beg I may not be interrupted.
Mr. JAmrs.—lf you are not making this application on
affidavit, I must oppose it.

Mr. WILKINS.—If you wish, I shall call the man before
the court who has had too much integrity to listen to the
offer made him, and he shall state on his oath the offer that
r was made, where it was made, when it was made, and by
whom it was made. (Loud cheers.)
The MAyon..—l request that perfect silence may be kept,
and that the officers of the court will do their duty.
Mr. WILKINS.—I cannot help expressing a little astonish-
meat at the anxiety displayed by the deputy town-clerk in
getting up to tell the court' his legal opinion, and to dictate
to the mayor.
Mr. CROOK, in the course of some sharp remarks that
ensued, complained of the temper of the learned gentleman,
and the injustice of his accusation.
The bench finally decided to hear the evidence viva voce,
which Mr. Wilkins said he could produce—with the under-
standing that Mr. James, who had not had notice of its being
to be brought forward, should at a future time be enabled to
have it repeated, and to bring forward such evidence as he
thought fit to rebut it. Before the witness was produced
some severe and accusatory language was used by Mr. Wil-
kins, which was replied to by Mr. James, and noticed from
the bench. Mr. Wilkins complained, in strong terms, of the
frequent and improper interferences he met with from Mr.
Harvey, but we have not space to particularise. Finally
Charles Maddock was called. Witness said he knew Charles
Benjamin Johnson, and had known him for some years. He
(Johnson) lived in Peter-street, and witness had seen him
take notices of objection out of Mr. Pennington's office.
Witness went to the house where he lived in Peter-street, on
Wednesday, the 30th of September, and found there the lady
of the house. She said he had not been in all night ; and he
had not seen him since. On the morning of Wednesday, at
four o'clock, he heard a gentleman make a loud knocking at
the door of the house in Peter-street in which he himself
lived. A person who lived in the front room opened the
window, and he then saw a man named Abraham Chapman,
who keeps a hatter's shop in Leigh-street, in the street. He
saw nothing in his hand either then or at any other time.
-Something was said about Johnson's house. There was be-
sides the woman of the house an unfortunate woman whom
he had frequently seen with Johnson. Witness saw him the
day before at Mr. Pennington's office, making up his papers
as a notice man, on the day before. On Wednesday, at nine
o'clock, Johnson was gone. Johnson was formerly clerk
with Mr. Hodgson, an attorney ; but witness did not know
what he had been employed upon lately.
Mr. JAMES declined to cross-examine the witness, as he
did not think it worth while.
Mr. WILKINS contended that the evidence went to show
that Johnson had been sent out of the way, and urged his
former application.
Mr. JAMES contended that there was no proof whatever of
any fraud or improper conduct on the part of those who em-
ployed him. It was not even shown that the man had been
looked for elsewhere, and he might still be in the town.
There was no proof whatever of any thing approaching to
bribery, and he submitted that the man was legally entitled
to his vote.
Mr. WRIGHT said that he thought no case was made out
to warrant them depriving the individual othis vote.
Mr. HARVEY and the MAYOR similarly expressed them-
selves.
Mr. WILKINS remarked that it was a hard case for them
whom he represented.
Mr. HARVEY considered it was by no means a hard case.
The court then decided that there was no ground to accede
to the application of Mr. Wilkins.
The list of objections was then gone on with (still in Ever-
ton ward), and several votes were allowed.
The objection against Ormerod Heyworth, Esq., was with-
drawn,
and his vote allowed. The following votes were then
allowed :—John Harrison, Joseph Hoskins, Win. Horsman,
Thomas Johnson, Richard Jackson, Francis Jaques, Evan
Evans, Joseph Jones, Richard Kerr, Thomas Kidd, Thomas
Kirk Bride, Isaac Law, and several others. The votes of I
several parties who did not attend, were adjudged to stand
over. The court then adjourned.