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

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 others 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 in particular 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 Jones'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
wMerre. Jinonheiss,emheplgeayvineenhtim to understand
that m
aall 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
astidaanys'
therettsothi
oaylsole w
whoa s
so ; and there he saw Birchall, and said he understood
tolf
thheergeiviesnyotuo
uh,a'Yeanitilt'he Thenex
next
daywitnesst h e answers, earns
d,
v`
olt leave the
he
smatterttiog
swewreadge,s"
members, and, having Birchall gives him 12s, as he
says, for himself and twvoo 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