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

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1853.

"•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 12s 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. MAcatmAy : 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
throwng 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
fn rlti4.lt7 "f the election

then rea.: _
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 bang
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. MAcausxy : 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 on the evidence of Grooby. That
witness, the committee will recollect, was examined at
great length, and he sheaved 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 ho 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 Giooby's
evidence in this respect. The 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 he 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 hands. 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 whichsheweci himto be an incautious and inconsistent
witness, or one who has not rnuchregard fortruth. 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-
inaining 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 £2G, 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 theßoyal 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 i 3 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 had breakfast ands
drank up stairs. He went there with Mr. Bland, bat 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 Pyecraft's, the Wheat Sheal,,where
Mr. Clegg was secretary and Mr. Watson the acting
chairman. Waltliew was-the person who acted. under
Watson and assisted Clegg. This evidence is conclusive
on that point, because he was sent there by Mr. Ruck.
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 Mr. 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 housaat which the committee met-was Maddison's
Railway Hotel. Here we have the evidence to show that
a man named Bridge, who keeps the " Qrgan,r 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
Madison, of the Railway Hotel, he brings in a bill of
£CO, of which he allots SIG as a charge for rent, leaving
411 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 Ii
want to know myself. I ha%e been trying to discover it
for the last eleven mouths." Then he left it to be inferred
that he kept open house of his own free will ; bat lam
satisfied the committee must have arrived at the conclusion
that he is just the sort of man vrho 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 aittiaag mem.
hers trc not responsible for whatever then took place. I come
now to St. Anne's Ward, and the' rontack." That is pre-
sided over by Ml.liatch, who describes himself as the com-
mittee ; and he discloses such an amount of intercourse
between himself and Mr. Buckmaster, at the central

ttee-rooms,
Acne,

o induce you to decide that you
with regard to his acts. Clegg,

uld recd
landlor

why they should be called " fourne.nny tickets " I cannot
understand ; for they were certainly not limited 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, hut 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
ditty, and whose employment was sanctioned by Mr.
Buckmaster. The landlord was examined on the 13th of
June, and lie 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 hill for the room was £8 or £9,
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 6d
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 no's
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, breakfasts 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 Buckmaster. We find that au 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, and made out a bill
for £4. Possibly his agency is not ectahliqW with snffi-
cient clearness to make his act the act of the sitting mem-
ber. He sees, " T 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 r 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 :n a
room up stairs. I cannot say by whome itover these were
supplied." But it appears he made out his bill, and
pressed Briscoe and Vaughan for payment ; and a mouth
afterwards be 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 thirteevshillings
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. have
no doubt that when the £l3 was paid, as well as when the
£ll was paid-, Briscoe said something like this, You most
not look upon this as payment of your bill, but a mere
loan to assist you out of your difaulties, 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 GeorgkTavern' and Mr. Gibson was the
secretary of the committee. Lawson charged'£so. He
says, of that sum ;r.:30 were pair! for refreshments, and
about £5 of that on the polling day. Wrially 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 Qucile 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 ho means voting, and treating.
and paying. And what does Mr. Wagstaff say ?
have nothing to do with it you must use your own di9-
action. It is quite clear the meaning 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 etet 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 smite 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. FRESHFIELD 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 c.t 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. INGmax, the chairman of the Committee on
the Liverpool Election Petition, also informed the house
that the evidence of John Williams was no longer essen-
tial. The house then ordered, thr.t John Williams be
discharged out of the custody of the Sod:nut-at-Arms,
without payment of his fees.

(FROI4 OUR OWN R.XP.ORTER.)
MONDAY, JUNE 20.

DEFENCE OF THE SITTING, MEMBERS.
The Committee re-assembled to-day at eleven o'clock.
Mr. JA,mas 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.
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,
as he says, they have not been actuated by party spirit,
but solely by a desire to maintain the purity of the boronal
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 elaction.
Now really, looking at the character of the case which has

been madte out in evidence, I would like to know 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 cotazaittee—and I will prove what I say before
petitioners was

I have dune—amt if the sole object of
to obtain a special resolution of the r

nnittee wit

to tLo us'

Lion provailing

at the last election, the whole case has
violent attack has been made upon the

reemer. of Liver.

,001, and although

istinctly

Ldicatecl that

he wished th

the temporary

disfranchisement of on

e alluded to proceed

atnons

had failed in the House of Lords, to an Act of Parliament

the legislature,

f the of

.e disfranchisement of the freemen of

!ars from the docun

Lts referred

a former elect

of freemen hribcd was 2,661 ; and the argument of my
teamed friend was, that the syatexg. o laitnry cud cot-