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

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 I2s 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. MACAULAY 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
thrown.; 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
there was more doubt as to the validity of the election
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 being
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. MACAULEY : 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 ou the evidence of Grooby. That
witness, the committee will recollect, was examined at
great length, and he shewed 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 he 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 Grooby's
evidence in this respect. T'ne 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 be 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 bands. 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 which shewed him to be an incautious and inconsistent
witness, °roue who has not muchregard for truth. 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-
maining 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 £26, 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 the Royal 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 is 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 bad breakfast and
drank up stairs. He went there with Mr. Bland, but 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 Pyecroft's, the Wheat Sheaf, where
Mr. Clegg was secretary and Mr. Watson the acting
chairman. Walthew was the person who acted under
Watson and assisted Clegg. This evidence is conclusive
on that point, because he was sent there by Mr. Buck-
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 31r.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 house at which the committee met was Maddison's
Railway Hotel. Here we have the evidence to show that
a man named Bridge, who keeps the " Organ," '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
Maddison, of the Railway Hotel, he brings in a bill of
£6O, of which he allots £l6 as a charge for rent, leaving
£44 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 I
want to know myself. I have been trying to discover it
for the last eleven months." Then he left it to be inferred
that he kept open house of his own free will ; but I am
satisfied the committee must have arrived at the conclusion
that he is just the sort of manwho 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 sitting mem-
bers are not responsible for whatever then took place. I come
now to St. Anne's Ward, and the " Pontack." That is pre-
sided over by Mr. Hatch, who describes himself as the com-
mittee ; and he discloses such an amount of intercourse
between himself and Mr. Buckmaster, at the central
committee-rooms, as to induce you to decide that you
would receive evidence with regard to his acts, Clegg,
the landlord of the Pontack, states that canvassers met

two or three times a-week in a room in his house. He

says there was no committee, that only canvassers met
there, and that the room was not private. Yet, upon his
examination, he admits that out of £4O, which was the
amount of his bill, he charged £25 for the rent of the
room. His bill was paid by Hatch. What did the can-
vassers order at the Pontack ? Mr. Birchall, who is a
principal canvasser, invites the electors to go up stairs and
get their breakfasts. That we have in the evidence of
Talbot, who was present himself, partook of coffee, and
saw from eighteen to twenty-four voters at breakfast there.
The next ward is West Derby. In this ward the com-
mittee sat at the Edge-hill Coffee-house, kept by witness
Marshall. Rowett was a member of that committee and
Downes a paid canvasser. Downes, upon being examined,
states that Watham employed him, and that Buckmaster
paid him at the central-office for his services, Mr.
Watham, his employer, being at the time present, and
vouching for the accuracy of his account. Downes also
states that there was beef, &c., laid out in the Coffee-
house, and, upon cross-examination. that refreshment
tickets were issugd the value of Wiring each. But