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

Or the electiOn day when your servant was absent,
This must needs be

:o beer

It cannot be bribery at
o corrupt contract ; it ace= net

to:rectini llLete CSLE
the sittng member

.ct the amount of w

,1-ton iaw, for thin i

practice
exists in particular eqtahlishmentsct for
; andthe, howeveronly the
I)ordering too nearly upon
;, any moral turpitude
not a payment

thin Lord Jot

committee may reg
bribery, I cannot s

connected with such
on behalf of the cand
individuals ; nor do
certainly the candidat

that there

a practice. It

---
~rivato, act o? certain
-.vc it is to he prevented, for
have no control over the proeee,d-
er establishments in the borough,
other side assert that a stipulation
aantinually made, that the voters should give their
ates for the ss. given to each, That was not proved in
one single instance, All the witnesses, without exception;
tell us that their votes were not affected by the money,
that the money did not induce them to vote ir a
certain way, and that, in short, it did not influence
them in the least. Recollect none of them were
paid as freemen, they were paid as workmen.
The practice of giving workmen a holiday upon such occa-
sions, and paying them ss. each, may be a bad one ; hut
there is no moral turpitude connected with it, and at all
events if, as in the present case, the payment is not made
on behalf of the candidates, it cannot be brought within
the penal section of the act of Parliament. I now come
to the case of Evans, the beerseller at the Old Oak, in the
Tosteth Ward , who was deputed by Mr. B. Jones to pay
ss. to each of his worhmen. What did Mr. 13, Jones say
to Evans when he gave him his instructions ? He told
him he had been always in the habit of giving his appren-
tices, blacksmiths, and sawyers, and every one in his
employment a holidayupon such an occasion as an election,
and to pay them their wages. Well, that is not a case
of Payment of head-money, but of payment of workmen
by their master, in accordanne with the usual custom of
his establishment. Of the aisty men by Evns on
behalf of Mr. B. Jones, there
were fifteen who did not
belong to the establishment, but who were private friends
of Evans'. Now, the explanation of this is, that Evans
excwithouteede the sanction d his aathority—that he made payments to men
or even knowledge of Mr.
Jones, and that 'What he did, therefore, tf B.
fairly
be brought against the
sitting members or
or any of
their amts. 'Ent what course have my learned
friends en the other side adopted ? Why, they have
called the whole of the fifteen men who should toot have
receivedi payments, but they have not produced one of
the other forty-'five who were paid as workmen. I appre-
hend that is ten-sharp practice. We now come to class
3. the case of tudor and others, who are alleged to have
been bribed by Rowe!, and Greene. Mr. Macaulay Snot-echo take it for granted that the committee would
look upon:Rowett as an agent for the sitting members,e to
but I venture to say that the committee wilt not
I come
'any such conclusion. However that may be,submit
0.
that atria 3 does not come within the class of payment
is
head-renney. One of the witnesses under this class, it true, w
did not deny that he sold his ore, but he added
that he went to the poll chiefly for the purpose of setts-
not .
hinghimself as to whether thero was'beibery practised or
It is remarkable, however, 'that all the other wit-
nesses gave a totally different account of the transaction.
= iier all assure us that there was'no contract whatever for
the money
their Votes; that they did not sell their votes; and that
them as an inducement for them-to vote in a certain way.
'Who a
they received was net 'intended or viewed by
Class 5 consists of thecase of Tudor, Heskett, and Wilson,
re all proved to have been'bribed by Jonas Gleave
by the payment ef .ss.
The CHAIR MAN each.
a state of delirium
; Tudor was the man who appeared in,
say anythin
, g ahont l
Mr..,ANf e a"
5, 'the
tremens• 'We won't trouble you to
ta retnernlaer
committee tapon This
we want ell
,'1 am not surprised at the decision of •
part of the case, though
Sergeant
Kin-,1 a aka, who •
hmv much way made of it by Mr.
called It the famous rosette case, and staid
the charge 'referred to the• con lment of sovereigns ''.'n
rosettes, with-hen distribtltecl amongeea the electors. The
charge aa es'heralded with a greatflourish of trumpets, gray
friend eveturesorting to his ;Latin grammar on the tab;ect
ridiritml,grer,ftru has
.---t'anYtt'in hetba.---and yetli a man labouring under
Such is a sample of the way in which my learned friends
been brought forward to prove it.
have entleavtrared to substantiate their wholesale and
lash accutations against respectable and honourable men.
,I: rlassacome to' George Turner, alleged to have been bribed
Cs!BY "antis' C4leave. Heves to have employment at 155., out
which- fiats to Pay his-rent. Now, apart from• the con-
sderation this is not exactly the way in which
a nartnamoilll he bribed-for his vote, I have to remind the
committee • that Turner avowed being actuated by a
ling Ortatred and reveege towards Gleave,`l3s'
he had been destrained, and that he publicly stated in
whom
latverpool, before giving his evidence, that he would serve
till:in in
Gleave out when he came to London. I have no hesita-
Xying that Turner bas tortured an office of em-
.P.oYrnent into an act of bribery, and I think the committee
will have no difficuity tu coming to the sameconclusion.
We come now to class -six, the case of Wilson, West-
More, . Talbot, Whitty, Brown, and Woads, who are
lleg,el to have been brit•ed by Birchall, at the Pontack
inn. -NOW, the witnesses under this head were men
of 'character and respectability in their office of life,
and they all dote. -the existence of any corrupt
hernia for their vote. 'One and all tell us that they did
not, ,or would not, sell their votes ; and, indeed, to offer
such teen ss, each for their votes would have been per-
fectly ridiculous. 'Talbot said that he baked upon the
ractney he got as big day
voted the 's wages, and that he-would have
All the other witnes same way thrugh he had not received the ss.
evident that no made a similar statement, and
bribery took place as far as
I now approach the case of Cannell,
heels bribed by Birchall,,by the pay-
we had Mr. Cannell before us, and
recollect that on the last occasion he
which did not appear to be
memory,
coma, and that his evidence de-

'Ns of mercantile or oth
My learned frien

ravWeil
:Ibee n shave
asotif said
Committees6ois cincerned
ot.o
will
appeared in a state ca
PeHded upon his -
Te 27 good.
The CHAIRMAN: Tho committee do not 'require you
to go into the ease of Connell.

'Mr. JAMES : Very Wel:, I shall proceed- to the formal
charge against ray hon.-friend Mr. Turner.
"The CHAIRMAN : With respect to that charge, also,
the committee do not wish you to refer to it, es it has not
at all been substantiated.
Mr. JAMES. The committee has come to a wise and
prudent decision. and I will only add, that election com-
mittees cannot be too scrupulously jealous inaeteing that
acts of good nature and philanthropy are not distorted
into acts of bribery and corruption. Mr. Macaulay
taunted me with not herring put Mr. Turner into the
witness-box. Now, in reply to that I have only to say,
that land my learned friend beside me, as the-counsel for
101 r. Turner, have told him that, in our opinion, this is
not a case in respect to which he - standc in any
°ern, or one in which -he is required to give evidence.
t now come to the case -of Mr. Grooby, the eccentric
bandmaster, who is alleged to have been iiiribed by a
inumber of the most respectable gentlemen in Liverpool.
nasmuch as he had received £l5 for the- services of his
band during the election, instead of £l2, the estimated
carte. Now there or no coession to bribe MreCa'rooby,
or, according to his own account, he is a: Protectionist
th!indal Conservative, and Mr. Hatch told the committee
at" -he counted upon Ids
.vote as securely as he did
rhis own. The truth is—and this was. proved by
e tal witnesses—that the .511 ME. of £l5 was given to
rnnt;', because that was -the amount p -to t other two bandmasters engaged during theaid elections noditawas thought that if Grcby was paid less than his
ghbe. ars he would not be -content. I think ;I have
now gone through the whole of the evidence with regard
too bribery. Let us see how -the evidence of -agency
.tanda. The committee have already passed resolutions
oeclaring Gleave, Hatch, Birchen, and—in a modified
Sense Jones, to have been authorised agents
of
the ei'eting members at the last election. do
not wish to interfere with these resolutions, b-ut
only to sla2w how the agency
of authority
be restricted
authority on the part
and modified on account of e-e
of the gentlemen in euestio-n.egsla?' ~,,,thLriegard to the
respect from
was
machinery' by which the
nestl election conducted, it differed in material .res
that
used at elections in Landon, Maechester, and otl7emr
towns. There was a Constitutional Association, largeenl
played, if you please, for I won't euarrel about names,
as a Central Coratnittee ; but according to the evidence of
t Ir. Sherlock and others, it appears that, although that
enniteittee consisted of about three heandred• members, yet
to all intents and purposes the whole business was ma-
taor, bY Messrs. Peacock, Bremner, Buckmaster, and
ee,`:22711:, therefore, I contend, were the only recegnlsed
Writ"; ?ors the ,sitting members at the last election.
th ward r?fer to the constitution aed the
consraitteea. They seem all to have originated
linethe llama
for generaf 111'417111er. They appear to be self-constituted
Was eaetiletion perposes. Their chief action,. so far
'several zed 'br tie central committee., was 1^

49 in can-
ether, and