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

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. INGHAM, the chairman of the Committee on
the Liverpool Election Petition. also informed the house
that the evidence of John Williams was no longer essen-
tdiiaele.harTgheed
outhouse f tthheen o
curedtoe rded ,
y 0
ft htaht John
e serie a Nni'lt.i la ti a..Aras be
rms,
without payment of his tees.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER.)

MONDAY, JUNE 20,

DEFENCE OF THE SITTING. MEMBERS.
The Committee re-assembled to-day at eleven o'clock

Mr. JAMES 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.
I 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, 1
as he says, they have not been actuated by party spirit,
but solely by a desire to maintain the purity of the borough
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 election.
Now really, looking at the character of the case which has
been made out in evidence, I would like to knew 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 committee—and I will prove what I say before
I have done—that if the sole object of the pe::',loners was
to obtain a special resolution of the committee with re-
ference to the system of bribery and corruption prevailing
at the last election, the whole case has utterly failed. A
violent attack has been made upon the freemen of Liver-
pool, and although Mr. Macaulay did not put it distinctly
and specifically before you, yet he i.la;nly indica'..2.l that
he wished the ccrarci,tee to come to some resolution for
the temporary disFranc%isenaent of one of the largest and
most impotlant constituencies in England. My learned
friend, Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, in introducing this ruse,
referred to former occasions. He alluded to proceedings
of a commission of the House of Commons which
had failed in the House of Lords, to an Act of Parliament
which, he said, had passed one branch o: the legislature,
but which did not receive the sanction of the other branch,
for the disfranchisement of the freemen of Liverpool.
Well, it appears from the documents referred to by Mr.
Seijeant Kinglake, that at a former electron the number
(If freemen bribed was 2,661 ; and the argument of my
learned friend was, that the system of /RUM', AO or,

ruption which existed then was in full force at the last
election, and that, in fact, upon the latter occasion, the
bribery was only limited by the number of freemen in the
borough. Now, let us see what has been proved in evi-
dence. Why the whole amount of pecuniary bribery—if
I may use such a term—which Las been proved to have
taken place among about 2,000 freemen is exactly £l2
6s. Gd., giving my learned friends credit for £l, to
which I do not think they are really entitled. This
mighty case, therefore, about which so much has been
said, and which, according to Mr. Macaulay, calls
for the temporary disfranchisement of the large and
important borough of Liverpool, has dwindled down to a
question of £l2 Gs. Gd., so far as the freemen are con-
cerned, and of £l9O expended, not by the sitting mem-
bers, but by independent parties, in what my learned
friends on the other side chose to term treating among
a constituency of 14,000 persons. Such are the groundS
upon which Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, after referring to the
bribery and corruption which existed at former elections,
calls for a special resolution of the committee for the
temporary disfranchisement of Liverpool. I would like
to know what more would be the special resolution which
my learned friend would propound to the committee. Is
it to be a resolution setting forth that, whereas at a
former election 2,601 freemen were bribed by an expendi-
ture of thousands; at the last election there were forty-one
persons out of a constituency of 14,000 who received ss. each,
not according to any usage or practice coming within the
penal clause of an act of parliament, but according to a
system prevailing in Liverpool of allowing workmen a
holiday without depriving them of their wages. But is it
here that the sole object of the petitioners is to maintain
the purity of the borough ? My learned friends on the'
other side have had the whole materials in their own
hands. Witnesses were at the very door of the commit-
tee-room who would have told us much more than the
witnesses who have been examined ; but my learned
friends have not ventured to call them. Why ? Because
they would have coupled with their evidence for the
petitioners a complete exoneration of the sitting members,
anti ~uuld hayr gruuutl Burin EMS case into even lee. than
its present miserable proportions . No party spirit dictated
this petition ! Look at the cross-examination of Mr. Rath-
bone, a name somewhat implicated in the corrupt expen-
penditure at former elections ; for it is well the com-
mittee should 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, and that some
members of Mr. Rathbone's family were largely impli-
cated in it. Now, look at that case about the Post Officee
It was not right for my friends to bring forward such a
case, without being certain that they could prove the
allegations which they made—allegations affecting not
merely the sitting, members, but an important depart,
went 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, in order to exonerate themselves 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 inquiry ; and Isay it was most unjust
that the only persons who could haveexplained the whole
matter, and wha 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. Is that an instance of it ? I say
such a charge, having been publicly made, ought to have
been as publicly withdrawn by the petitioners. Now,
before I come to the enormous• mass of evidence with
which this table groans, let me clear away those cases
that have not been proved at all. There are no less than
43 cases (involving, charges 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 a
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 less than two days to pre-
pare. This list comprised 19 cases ; not, one of these
was proved ; evidence was- offered in one case—that of
the witness Orme—which, so far from proving to be an
instance of bribery, was olearly shown. to be a case of
bond fide 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 Seijeant Kinglake. But, in the class of cases
not proved, the most disgraceful, involving as it does the
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 wantof that fairnesss which usually regulates- the proceedings
of public journalists, was made public- on a Sunday in a
very widely circulated journal. Of course the petitioners
cannot be responsible for any breach of the etiquette of
the press but certainty, I tntmc more caution shouts nave
been exercised, fcr the publication of such an exparte list,
reflecting upon the personal honour of Mr. Mackenzie,
was a most cruel proceeding. There was clearly not the
slightest pretence for the accusation that had been made.
The witness, John Dimsdale, was examined on the point,
and stated most positively that he did not apply for employ-
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 many ot these transactions. I allude to the evidence
of Grooby, Brown, and Cannell. I ask, had they any
means of discovering that the charges against Mr.. Mac-
kenzie were without the shadow of foundation. They
could easily have ascertained, and probably these who are
in office now would not have been very loth to- give the
required 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 was given in order.to bribe
the voter. The man, it had been proved, never had the
situation at all. And how was this case conducted ?
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 prius
case, where the object is only to get the verdict, and where
there is no question of personal character or honour.

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

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

Mr...lames I do not wish to throw any imputation
upon my 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. Now, 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 know,
he may be nothing more than a myth. I ask, then, whe-
ther these charges, unsubstantiated as they have proved
yl:aket le e
Buckley
a Jones
n d r e s ; p
eacr da b
tmy
to be, were not levelled against the Secretary of the Trea-
sury of the late government ? Amongst the other cases
not proved were those of Freres Rankin and Chas. Smith,
Allanson and Charles Cale, said to have been bribed by
atwlloeggeedntto hlemaevne
of
feetn bribed
hehighesbt
ci
Mr. Thomas Fleetwood Roskelt. and Mr. George Henry,
Horsfall. Allanson was_shown,to have received ss. 6d.
for fitting up the committee-room- Mr. Horsfall was in
the lobby for. the purpose of 'being identified, but
he was never called by the petitioners, so that he,
might have an opportunity of exonerating himself.
Having alluded to the cases in which no proof has been
attempted, will now approach those in which attempted
proof has been, offered. I. do not propose to enter into
minute details, but to glance at the most salient and pro-
minent points of the case. Following the order chosen
by Mr. Macaulay, 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 ss. in 41 instances, of 10s. in the case of Connell,
of 12s. fid. in the case of Turner; of the promise, by the
hon. member, Mg. Turner, of a situation to. Bathurst
Brown ; and of the receipt of £l5 by Grooby for his hand.
These are the cases with which we are to deal. These are
the proportions into which this mighty case has dwindled.
And now let me approach the question whether these cases
constitute bribery or not, either by common law or statute
law. Let me refer first to the case of Mr. Buckley Jones's
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. Is it bribery under the statute
George 11., bribery under the common law, or bribery
under Lord John Russell'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 whch
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 some
corrupt usage and practice of the borough, as is ex-
plained by the 20th section of the act. The Durham and
the Derby cases were the foundation of that section. In
Derby there had been fer a long period a custom cf paying
" head money," and in Durham, I believe. it was called
" basket money." These were customs and habits of the
borough, the money being given to the voters on account
of their votes. But how does the matter stand in the
present case ? I say, that the majority of the instances
which have been brought before us afford no illustration
whatever of any usage or corrupt practice in the boroug4;
but they are illustrations of a practice existing in parti-,
cular large establishments, dock and timber yards, (1
giving them (the workmen) ss. on the occasion 0'
elections. This may be a practice which you ra9r.
c:.-ndemn ; it is a practice you may report against
but it cannot be brought within the highly petal
provisions of this act of Parliament, and thus cannot
have the effect of unseating the members, One of the
witnesses positively stated that the ss. had no influence
whatever upon his vote, and that he should have taken et
as an insult had it been offered to him for that porpte
No corrupt bargain has been established, and the practice
is one that exists in particular establishments.
A holidayction;
was given to the men on the occasion of the election;
_
and certainly it cannot be considered a holiday if thaurff
do not receive their wages. Mr. Fisher. the foreman
to
Mr. Luckley Jones's men, said a holiday ccsef_tions,
voters and non-voters at municipal and general w 1;
and that he found the men were pleased with it and it.d worke I
re
all the better in consequence of having F
the provisions
ask can such a practice be brought within taf
yearlY
r
of Lord John Russell's act ? Take the case
ott
monthly hiring at the end Qf year or aMg Y

each,
in the
to a

intaia

In the'