The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-07-30 00:00:00

tol case referred to by Mr. Simon) declared the sitting mem-
ber duly elected."

There is a fuller report of that case in a separate report of the
proceedings of the Worcester election ; that committee took
place in 1819: I know that was prior to the reform bill, but so
are these acts here, and if those persons have been acting upon
the faith of the decisions of three committees of the House of
Commons, you can hardly disfranchise them upon that ground :
the agency was proved, and I will merely refer the committee
to one or two passages in the report: Mr. Griffiths was called,
and Proved to be the agent of Colonel Davies; the question was
asked, " Perhaps you can tell me from your memorandum the
amount Mr. Griffiths paid each day ?—X es, I can, he paid me
on the 15th £l5 155., on the 17th £l2 125., on the 18th £22 ls.,
on the 19th £2O 9s. 6d., on the 2.3 d £7 17s. 6d., and on the 24th
£7 17s. 6d. Now, before the election, or within a month or
within two months previous to the election, had Mr. Griffiths
actually applied to you for many freedoms ?—A great many.
Had he paid you for many?—Yes. Can you state the amount
of those sums ?—N o, I cannot. How much do you suppose?—
They began to take up on the election account the first Mon-
day in the year one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, and
from that time to the election week four hundred persons had
their freedom one way and another, and I should state, speak-
ing within moderation, that Griffiths paid for half of them be-
tween the first Monday in January 1818 and the 28th of June."
Then the agency is proved, and in Mr. Warren's speech upon
that occasion, there are these passages—" One of the honour-
able members of the committee asked whether there had been
any case upon this point. It was admitted there never had
been any case in which it had been decided that the taking up
freedoms during the election was bribery." That is an admis-
sion not contradicted by the other side. They then go into the
case of 1774, and the case of Bristol in 1786, and Mr. Warren
uses these arguments, which I will rather read as a part of my
speech than use my own arguments, because I cannot comprise
them in language so clear as this is, in which, also, they come
with the authority of Mr. Warren's name. He says, " you
should prove a conversation ; writings do not often take
place on such subjects, but some discourse with the agent or the
principal by these persons stating that if they would vote for a
particular candidate they should Ihave their freedoms; short of
that you open the door for every species of conjecture, and upon
this construction, with whatever view given, however laudable,
you have nothing to do, but prove it given during the course of
the election, and to shew that the person voted for the party
giving it, and then to conteld that that affects the seat of the
sitting member, either by his own act or the act of his Agent."
Then he sums up the principle deduced in this case as follows—
"I apprehend the principle to be deduced is this, that you
must show that there was a desire expressed when the money
was given, or a demand that the party should vote in conse-
quence of it, because, in the Bristol case,
_ the latter part of it
you will observe goes directly to prove this, that a desire ought
to have been shewn of a promise to vote for some one as the
condition of the fees being paid. Then there is that second
case in 178 d, which appears to he quite decisive on this point;
then there is the argument which I have just used myself as to
the.payuaent of travelling expenses, which has always been con-
sidered legal, as affording the freemen an opportunity of exer-
cising their franchise, that has stood upon the same ground; I
put him in a situation to exercise his franchise, but I do not tell
him how he is to exercise his vote." The committee having
met and deliberated came to the following resolution:—" That
Thomas Henry Hastings Davies, Esq., is duly elected a citizen
to serve in ,this present parliament for the city of Worcester."
Therefore, that clearly establishes that in 1774 and 1776, and
in 1819, the committees have all come to a solemn decision
that the payment of the fees of admission of the freemen is not
illegal and would not vitiate an election. I think, then, that I
should not press that point further upon the committee. It is
quite clear that the committee is guided by precedents as any
other court is guided, and where there is a current of precedents
it is as much guided and bound by it as by an act of parliament.
Something has been said as to an understanding with the
Town-clerk at the time of taking out those .freedoms. Now,
what does that understanding come to? It is merely this, that
as I have now shewn that it is legal for any person to pay the
admission fees for the freemen, the Town-clerk does not insist
upon being paid those fees immediately he issues each separate
admission, but insists that they shall be paid- that evening, he
being responsible to his employers for the fees, and merely tak-
ing the responsibility of the gentleman who is to pay the fees as
his security. Now, what there is in any way improper in that
transaction I am at a loss to conceive.

Sir, I have now, I believe, cleared away all the preliminary
matter, and I will come directly to the evidence as to the elec-
tions. I will first take the elections of 1827 and 1830, I
will then go to the elections previous to 1827 and 1830, and I
will then take the elections subsequent to 1830. Now with
respect to the elections of 1827 and 1830, I am not going, as I
have said again and again, to deny the guilt of those elections.
All that I shall put to the committee is this, that in both cases
it was a mere struggle between two private parties, in which no
political interests were involved. It is proved that on both sides
gentlemen of the most opposite political sentiments were en-
gaged, and I would submit that those mere accidental outbreaks,
though they are without any excuse, afford no fair criterion of
the character or the disposition of the freemen who even then
were entitled to exerc►se that franchise, still less do they afford
any fair criterion of the character and disposition of those who
now appear upon the register, a very large proportion of whom
were .not in any way impl►cated in the transactions of 1827 or
1830.

Sir, I am sorry to say that the contagion in that case spread
far and wide. Mr. Atkinson, a £5O householder, proved that his
father received a sum of £lO. It was proved by another witness
that a retired tradesman in the possession of no less than £lO,OOO
received a bribe of £6O. It was proved that a captain in the
Cumberland Militia was bribed, that persons of all ranks and
stations of society received bribes. Why then are we to select
and pick out the poor and the needy. Sir, if I could make any
distinction I would make the distinction in favour of the poor
man who had been seduced in that case, and I will only remind
the committee of that case which Mr. Atkinson stated of a poor
man who at first steadfastly refused a bribe, saying that he had
promised to vote for a particular candidate, and he refused that
bribe till his wife and his children implored him for their sakes
to take it. Mr. Atkinson detailed the statement with the most
unblushing effrontery, and shewed feelings which I am sure the
poor victim of his seduction never experienced, and I declare be-
fore Go'd that I would ten thousand times sooner have been the
person who accepted that bribe than the person who offered it.
Sir, in the election of 1827, and at all the mayors' elections, I
beg the committee to remember that the gentlemen then pro-
posed as candidates for mayor never interfered in any way in
that election of 1827. It is distinctly proved that Mr. Porter
was too ill to leave his house, and that Mr. Wright represented
him throughout the whole of that election. Sir, Mr. Porter
certainly has incurred a great deal of odium throagh the case, but
I must say, that from the evidence which has been produced be-
fore this committee it would seem to me rather to have been the
indiscretion and the folly of over zealous friends, than the com-
mission of any premeditated and wilful corruption.
Sir, the next election to which I would refer is Mr. Brancker's
election. That election was in 1830. Mr. Ewart's election and
canvass was at that time going on. The candidates were both
in the town. The active person for Mr. Brancker was the
chairman of Mr. Ewart's committee. It appears that there were
certain sums of 6s. and no more, paid to individuals upon that
occasion. My honourable friend I believe misunderstood it and
thought it amounted to £3 to several individuals, but the witness
set that right and said that it was divided among the men. The
first impression upon my mind from his evidence had been that
the trap door was made for the purpose of clandestivity, but it is
clear that it was with no such view whatever, but that it was all
done openly. Now lam ready to admit that clandestivity is
generally an evidence of guilt, but in this case there was no
clandestivity, it was done at the witnesses' own suggestion in
order to prevent any of those persons coming who had not voted.
But above all there is no proof of any previous promise,
and according to the cases I have cited before, unless there is a
previous promise the payment of money after an election does
not vitiate it.

Sir, Mr. Knipe, who, this committee will recollect, throughout
his evidence spoke in the most unguarded manner, and spoke
quite at hap-hazard, fixed' the amount of the expenses of this
election at £5OO. Mr. Russell and Mr. Ashburner, one of whom
paid the money and the other audited the accounts, proved that
the sum total of the expense was only £320. There is another
striking circumstance in the evidence. It appears that Mr.
Knipe's bill was disallowed upon that occasion, and perhaps his
evidence in that box may be a little accounted for by the cir-
cumstance..
Sir, I come then to the elections before 1830. Now I am
clearly entitled to take it that every election but the elections of
1823 and 1826 is perfectly unattached.
Mr. RoscoE. We have proved a regular practice for eight
or ten years.
Mr. 14 ICBM,. You have done nothing of the sort; and besides,
that general sort of evidence would not do. There is no witness
that speaks to any corruption in any election previous to 1827.
In 1823 the sum total of the charge is that it was a phantom
election. The witnesses were asked what they meant by a
phantom election, and they said it was an election where a man
was proposed by the freemen for the sake of getting money and
drink. Now I ask whether the committee believe that Lord
Molyneux was proposed as a phantom in that election, when he
was proposed by my honourable friend Mr. Rushton and se-
conded by Mr. Mather, whose evidence I am sure upon a former
occasion the committee will well remember, and who gave, I
must say, his evidence in the case with the most perfect honesty.
Mr. MOTHER. I was not a burgess of Liverpool.
Mr. Nicnol.. But it was a Mr. Mather, and 1 believe a rela-
tion of this Mr. Mather. Mr. Harvey was a party also engaged
in that election, and many of his relations, and therefore I con-
ceive that they will not attempt to say that that was a phantom
election, in the sense in which that term was used by Mr.
Haselden or Mr. Robinson, namely, that a person was proposed
Merely for the purpose of getting money or drink. My honour-
aLle friend, I believe, admits that it was done rather with the
view suggested by the other side, that it was a peg to hang a
speech upon. But Mr. Foster and Mr. Wright have proved the
origin of this term. In 1816 Mr. Leyland was proposed without
appearing on the hustings, and Mr. Canning said he should be
glad to have flesh and blood before him. He said " stat a no-
minis umbra," but there is no gentleman I believe acquainted
with Liverpool who will say that that was a phantom election in
the sense of an attempt to get money or drink.
But, be that as it may, whatever may be the meaning of that
term, they have entirely failed in showing. that any money or
drink was given upon • one of those occasions ; and, therefore,
it is of no use to say what they understood by phantom elections,
unless they show that there was a foundation for that appella•
tion for them. Now, the next election I shall come to is the
election of 1829, in which Sir George Drinkwater was a candi-
date. Mr. Knipe says t hat paupers got ss. and a dinner. Now,
it is clear that the paupers had a right to exercise their fran-
chise. They went up to vote, and I conceive that the friends
,
of Sir George Drinkwater did, as is very common with sheriffs,
and so on
to the debtors in gaols, or to poor persons,; they gave
them a dinner and something to drink. But Knipe says again,
that it cost five hundred pounds; now, Russell, the auditor of
these accounts, proves that it was two hundred pounds. Mr.
Ashburner, another witness, not the one I alluded to before,
said that he canvassed two districts, and that in neither of those
districts was money or drink given. After the close of the elec-
tion he said seven pounds or eight pounds was paid for scores,
but there was no proof of any previous promise.
Sir, I omitted the election of 1826. The mere charge against
that is that it was a phantom election, but there is no proof
that money or drink was given, and they have not proved that
the opposition in that case was set up by persons at Liverpool.
They might be in a humble situation of life, but I have yet to
learn that persons in a humble situation may not propose a can-
didate, for I have always understood that the right exists among
the lowest electors of proposing any candidate they choose;
but, upon that occasion, it was proved that Mr. Huskisson was
opposed upon the ground that he was a friend to free trade, and
a popular prejudice or prepossession prevailed at that time, that
the consequence of the.free trade system would be to carry the
repairs of ships to the other side of the Atlantic, and the poor
shipwrights were naturally very much annoyed with those mea-
sures.
I will now come to the elections subsequent to 1830. It was
originally said and attempted to be shown, that those elections
were tainted with corruption and bribery, but that ground was
ahandoned, and in the course of yesterday's cross-examination,
and the whole of the latter part of the case, the attempt has been
not to show that impurity existed, but that the purity was the
result solely of the fear and dread of punishment. Now, I must
say that was a most desperate manoeuvre for the other side,
because, by undertaking to show that the motive for the purity
was only the dread of punishment, they admit clearly that the
purity of those elections could not be attached.