The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-14 00:00:00

LI VER POOL STAND AIM.

when he last offered himself to the electors of Gloucester,
but the gallant officer ;as beaten by Mr. Hope. It
obeyed the mandate of; Lord Durham, and fought under
the.noble lord's banners in. the.. cause .of Mr. Barclay at
the Sunderland election, but.the usual fate befel its ad-
vocacy Alderman Thompson was returned. And
last., not least,.it was the thick and, thin adherent, and
toweting champion of Sir John Cam Hobhouse in `Vest
Minster ;_ but, alas, its friendship proved mortal, and the
worthy baronet was flung out, by a comparative stranger,
as an old market woman would fling a rotten turnip or a
bruised onion.

These are a few of the casualties which the venal
and treacherous Times. has inflicted upon its admirers
and confidants. In the case of Sir John we haN e no tears
to shed, no sympathy to throw away. He and others
had set the example of giving pledges, and acting the
part of tools and slaves to the basest portion of their con-
stituents; by appealing to their passions, by inspiring
them with hopes which they kneW could not be realized
and cramming them with promises which they well knew
it was impossible to fulfil. During his whole life Hob-
house had been the declared opponent of. those taxes,
which, when in office, and, in the enjoyment of good pay,
he refused to repeal. The Whigs in power were to him
eeowthing—his constituents nothing. This was not the
case fOrmerly when he was a sad and sour member of his
",Majesty's opposition." The house and window duties
were then hateful things. It was during that period that
he and Lord Althorp voted for their repeal .merely to an-
noy the existing government of. the. day. The cry then
was " let the house reduce an obnoxious tax, and let the
ministers find a substitute."

That factions cry, that mean and dishonest policy, now
reverberates back upon the treasury benches, and the
Whigs are in an agony. Their day of delusion and fraud
is past. They have not sufficient influence or popularity
to return any one of theirmembers or colleagues in any
of the great towns of the empire. Look at the Irish Se-
cretaryship ? it is vacant, and no respectable man can be
found to fill it. Mr. James Abercrombie dare not take
it or he would lose his seat for Edinburgh. . Spring Rice
must eschew it or he would be kicked out of Cambridge.
Bernam wood would march to Dunsinane if Sir Henry
Parnell were to accept the office and make. a second
appeal to the weavers of " bonny Dundee," Even Mr.
Edward Ellice, respected as he is, would run consider-
able hazard in Coventry, if he were to whisper any in-
tention of embarking for Dublin. In shoft, the. ministry
are hemmed in and embarrassed by the shackles they
imposed upon themselves by their darling reform bill.
But a parting word with Sir-John Cam Hobhouse. If
we had no other ground of gratification at his.rejection
by the people of Westminster, we should find it in the
malignity of his wretched menaces against his opponent,
Colonel- Evans. He declared that he might, when Se-
cretary of War, have erased the Colonel's name from the
army list, with a stroke of his pen. Could he ? Perhaps he
could, but what petty malice is in the threat ! None but
but ,a disappointed Whig would talk in this manner. It
is true that. Hobhouse has made an apology and endea-
voured to eat his words, but it is impossible to conceal
what intemperate venom expressed, and what personal
fear retracted. But he is done

WE hope that the remarks we are about to offer on the
evidence given before the committee on the Liverpool
election may be the last that will be made in the
STANDARD on this tedious, repulsive, and eptesubject.
We may be tempted, or rather compelled to resume it by
the coiicluct of our contemporaries, in which case the blame
shall be theirs; but we •trust in their good sense, to re
frain from reviving acts of folly, of which we are satisfied •
t hat the disappointed candidate, Mr. Thornely, and his
indiscreet agents and advisers are new heartily ashamed.
In justice to the calumniated freemen we submit the fol-
lowing analysis of and running commentary upon. the
evidence to our readers. We give it as we find it, and
we regret to say that never in the whole course of a ra-
ther long experience, did we ever encounter so trumpery
a case, or meet with more disreputable witnesses, or see
so slight an admixture of truth in so large a mass of ter-
giversation, falsehood, and fraud.
Mrs. Robinson's -evidence has already been disposed
of, and it is needleSs now to advert to it here, being con-
vinced that there is not a single *human being in exist-
ence, in the possession of reasoning faculties, or capable
of counting his ten fingers, who deems it, entitled to cre-
dit. There is one: circumstance attending the alleged
situation •of this woman which must not be passed over,
and which Mr. Rathbone and Mr. Harvey are bound to
explain.
She stated before the committee that she bad, previous
to her appearance in London, informed the gentlemen
who first questioned her, that she had taken an oath not
to divulge the name. of the man who, she said, had re-
ceived the bribe of £3 10s. These gentlemen, then,
Messrs. Rathbone and Han ey, knew that this wretched
woman had either taken this oath, or that she had told
them a lie. We freely give them the benefit of the al-
ternative. Some low people,• principally Irish, are ac-
customed to take these oaths, which although illegal, are,
in their opinion, as morally binding as any oath taken
before a magistrate. Presuming, therefore, that the wo-
man, Robinson, had taken this oath, as she stated, the pe-
titioners, neverthelesti, drag her to London in order to re-
veal that which she had sworn not to reveal ! But sup-
posing they did not believe that she had bound herself by
an oath, then they must haVe believed that she had told
them a gross falsehood ; and yet, in the full conviction of
her being a deliberate liar they per fas et nefas take
her as a witness before a committee to give evidence af-
fecting the rights and liberties of three thousand of our.
fellow-townsmen ! These are the startling facts, and we.
beg the agents and purists to lay them to their con-
sciences, and endeavour to worm themselves out of the
dilemma in the best way they can.
Mr. Charles Abercrombie is the next witness on our
list, and we are desirous to treat him as courteously as a
sense of justice and the unpleasant predicament in which
he is placed Will admit. A contemporary states, but
hether seriously or in joke, we hardly can tell, that,

" the first case of direct bribery
,is proved by Mr. Charles
Abercrombie." Now, I'vliat does Mr. Abercrombie's evi-
dence amount to ? He says he saw a man, whom he did
not know, whom he never saw before., and has not seen
since, receive a five pound Bank of England note, from a'
person whom also he did not know, but who, judging
fron his back, he considered to be a man about 30 years
of age. This is what our contemporary- calls proof. Does
he knoW anything of the rules of evidence ? If he do, he
must know, that Mr. Abercrombie's evidence, even sup-
posing it to be credible and true, is inadmissible, for the
witness did not know whether the person bribed was or
was not a freeman. We are unwilling to say anything
harsh of Mr. Abercrombie, but we are afraid that we
must throw his evidence into the fire. -It is not worth a
traw.

Some one or two witnesses speak of the inebriety of
the freethen at the last election, but this charge we shall
dispose of very briefly. Mr. Alderman Wright than
whom a more unexceptionable witness, or one better
known to, or more generally acquainted with the free-
men could not be found, states, that there was " less
drunkenness at the last election than at any he had ever
seen ;"—that he never saw the burgesses conduct them-
selves with more propriety, and that moreover the dif-
ferent canvassers received the most positive instructions
not to pay wages, not to treat the voters, and, in short,
not even to promise them either drink, money, or any
reward whatever.

John Allen states before the committee, that he saw
Mr. Robert Horsfall give one Bruffield £1 10s. on one
of the days of the election, but nobody saw this but him-
self ; and Mr. Robert Horsfall and his brother deny the
charge in the most solemn and unequivocal terms.—
Neither of these gentlemen knew any person of the name
of Bruffie]d. It is not even attempted to be proved that
this Bruffield is a freeman ; the charge, consequently,
falls to the ground. The witness, Allen, admits that his
wife received money from Mr. Harvey to induce him to
go to London and give his evidence, and this is the
only bribery which we see in the case.
The evidence respecting wages and drink in the case
of the Moorcrofts is all positively refuted by the parties
implicated. It is utterly beneath notice.
It is stated by one Kehoe, who was employed as a sort
of porter or doorkeeper at the committee-room of Lord
Sandon, that he'saw Mr. James Ackers give four or five
sovereigns, wrapped up in red ribbons to a certain un-
known plan, dressed in a blue coat and trowsers. He
did not know whether this unknown person was a voter
or not—he-did not know whether or fur whom he voted
—and he did not know whether he was a freeman or a
three-and-tenpenny of Lord John Russell's creation. In
short, it is impossible, with any quantity of credulity to
believe this witness. His own story is its best refutation.
Mr. Ackers denies most positively that he gave any
money to any freeman or voter in a blue coat and trow-
sers, or to any other voter in any other coat during the
election—in fact, he asserts that he had not a sovereign
in his pocket during the election!
George Kirby, who calls himself a Custom-house offi-
cer has stated, that on the second day of the election, he
met one Richard Radcliff, a printer, who in the town of
Liverpool and at the period aforesaid, did ask him to take
a glass of brandy and Water, which he, Kirby, had too
much good`sense to decline. As the witness was drink-
ing his grog at his friend's." expense, in a room of the
White Hart tavern, amongst a number of working-men •
(for such is his romance,) lie saw a piece of paper laid
upon the table by an unknown man, which he says
" looked like a Bank of England note." Not having
the powerful visual organs of Mr. Abercrombie, who saw
right through the body of Mr. Fairclough, he would nut
undertake to swear that the note was a bona fide note,
far less that it was a five, ten, or twenty pound note. He
might with equal ingenuity and reservation have sworn
that it looked like a bill of lading, an excise permit, or a
tavern bill.

To .contradict Kirby, the Custom-house officer, his
treating friend Radcliff is called, and who is he, think
you, courteous reader ? A supporter of Lord Sandon
or Sir Howard Douglas ?—No, no. He voted for Ewart
and Thornely He poSitively denies that he treated any
man with brandy and water on the day specified—he de-
nies that he met Kirby on that day—he 'denies that he
was in the White Hart on that day—in short, he is ready
to swear that the whole evidence of the Custom-house
officer was a false entry, and a tissue of inventions from
beginning to end.

James Rigby states that Mr. Smith, or Mr. Clay, or
Mr. somebody-else, offered him £2 10s. for a vote on tl:e
second day of the election. This Rigby confesses that
he had no vote—that he never had a vote—but that he,
honest man, being tempted to do that which he knew lie
durst not do, and which we are confident he never was
asked to do, indignantly refused the £2 10s. We leave
this witness to stand or fall by his own evidence. No
man adjudicating upon the rights and privileges, or the
life or property of a cat, would believe one word lie says.
He states that he was sober at the time this splendid
bribe was tendered to him, but that had he had a few
more glasses in him he would have accepted it, even at
the perilous hazard of committing perjury ! He accuses
somebody, who is unknown, of bribing his wife, a woman
apparently just as respectable as her husband and no
more, through the hands of their child, but this is like
all the other instances of flagrant_ and, disgusting false-
hood.

Mrs. Rigby establishes the .respectability of Mr.
Rigby; she makes it perfectly clear that neither of them
are entitled to the least credit. She is not sure, she says,
," whether the gentlemen who called in the evening were
the same gentlemen who called the next morning .'"
Worthy Woman ! . She says her husband was drunk in
the evening—but was his wife quite unsophisticated,
despite the ex doublem tumblerum—that is Rathbune
Latin—in the morning ? She is asked, " Have you
talked this matter over with your husband ? She an-
swers, " I never have ! !"
Mr. „ThOinaS Weston Clay, Mr. George Clay, Mr.
Andrew Blowei • Smith, Mr. William Smith, and Mr.
Alexander Smith, all deny the allegations of this Rigby

and his wife. Reader, you can form your
sions!!
John Hudson states that on the Thursday
election he met a gentleman in the street, Who
half-a-crown. The gentleman he styles
Horsfall," and describes him as a "short
denied by the Messrs. Horsfall that they gave
to any freeman at the time or for the purposes
and as concerns the fact that they were not
from whom Hudson received the half- crown,
sonal appearance, they being "tall me°,
testifies. Hudson admits that he voted for
Now, if he received anv money at all, wb'ell
enough, is it unreasonable to conclude, se
he voted, that he was bribed by e.
the Rathboi
that the money was handed over in the namerespectable gentleman, in order to deceive
form a foundation for this contemplated

the freemen ? ' The transaction is of so

that we should hardly have credited its
by the defeated candidate and his agents,
sures of the last few months did not place
in a very suspicious light before the public'
• Another witness, Allan Bland, states till
day of the election, be saw a gentleman, in
give a sovereign or sovereigns to a "
with. long clothes on !" This person says

the man who gave the sea-faring man tl
pulling him by the coat, told him " that lie
and on being asked why he did this, he
cause" was vexed to see .money pass

the other !!" There is an honest rogue
few such witnesses as this would sink a

in a clam. He goes on to confess that he
the first instance ; for he did not know

but on being urged to find him out if p°

upon the Exchange,, along with a sheriffs
having the hopes of a ride to London, and
GoosE AND BoAu, and some money to

eyes, he pointed out Mr. J. I'. Raynes as
gentleman in the brown coat.

Now what says Mr. Raynes ? H e knows
as Allan Bland—he did not give a soverei
during the election—he held no such co.

stated with any voter, freeman, or seafaring
this how does Allan Bland look ? Nearly as
Wm. Rathbone.

Mr. Edward Melling's evidence is not e

notice.

Mr. John Haselden proves a rather
against himself and friends. He states
five of his own workmen to vote for Ewart

but they refused, and he very sagely att

fusal to the influence of bribery by the

But he proves nothing against the freeme
whom he attempts td criminate rebut his

satisfactory manner, and their statements
rated by Mrs. Spencer, the landlady of
Arms. Mr. Haselden has confessedly used

r
I
your own et!
.. ,
~r- —•
tursday befeu
!et, whoa
''les "oinglia
fort man."
gave any
1
nnposes 51 '
e not the I
crown, their
men,„ saill ...........--""14.
i
Led for Voki 0.
which is pi
seeing fortiv
tbbone parti,.. 'COR
name of a
.ive the voter' ,
red chargeCO
o base a el° 1:88b,
d its colvoli' Ei.,i4l
its, if the Ittan4aT,
lace theirceqi4relle`i
olic. kti4,`,,l,
that oatliese. ',lnri;',4,t
I, in a bOT'lct Jeri? of
‘‘ , lig" ' tn'at
seal. ci. vt
,s thaille&J: T,"t the ' 1
the POI(' 4'4:
'lt Ile ) OV.
he, an: . #
attoy fe,f ' •
gue forr
I)Libliii
I
lie told 111, .
,0,
v the
Oft , 0
pc st
lble l'e .
Tifs ok4ii /
and a for.
bef'''t'
o boot, 1.. ."--•
'S as the '' •Pf
dit'
nows no ~
'reign to sll'
;onversatOst,
ring woo, F
.•
rly as hiPe
liti %.
,t entitled
r suspiei .:i
es that i,. eon. '
art and 11',' t'ti.,Ltit,',.l
attribate,Y qitiio(etzi
e orpoiitet ale rpse
Ili . '9 f•
mien. , • •
his ecislec
• ei
ants ale
P's 0 'laite
•of the , toil ,
ed uncle: 1 , 'ille,ll4.
' kl)e i,
ove.
bout if 3 ;,,,- .b.
Lis envie Jo, k•
,',e which'' 'l44'
lisclosed '):, t.
ven only ' tiloial
Nerc all (O .tir44: he
Of fifty , o Rk,
s at all, ~ ' 'itti,, by
,aging 10 4 .1:
that 11'4 4
plasterers ' kfter
0 TLi
itt
'will
ed to Wks
) or 30 50, ,bl' br
's of Sir P.', brain
ierefore tlOl, ro,'lti t,
[is eye,le, '4131;t:
d. After r 4t 4111/ii
3S-eXalVitii Xlittirli•
ed to add' •`•••.,
cf,, r fie ° CjiS
.--.7 ' ,31 'l. -,,_
ae into tv,i , tjlej:4s
to drio:, ro 144i,1,5tt
aitY ogell r
fitted tb't It,
it, 1
uylli,
el, the !lig, ' 41'111,4'
Passed off 8,41 and
i
ei-idence, tilkttaN
st electiot of'zfell
T 1 le re 3; topi&l' l',o ti,
he fact 0' trikk
Ise or ill:04. lull
ffian. " 4 LIV '
Y, and tlir Iv '.it
te, or, ' 11.
other Sti,nity itiotil
D proof. °I li,a;
(3e,1
)onderous '' 'l
• •
This is r,11g., .804
1 impartisi , kke 4
IN' e has.e , ild lei
it in vai? I exl'zie
fence, or 161' ote.ills
y Ratlillit , : ft() es
e, then `l4,ra
beeP '
4 It, DI
lg.has IlaS be;ii dti
few oic,c# 14
td e$
and carev)
Oa v to ,q 1 2.%
on. 0 ,
the evideo m(4111
now' betty 'r• 4
the ooISA t
Y have 1"' -'4„.
,of 4:
----' .le's.kiti(
NTS. e 14- 4
op. ,11,
for the bit`" ' e'ttpti
viilig, ~,, A Arv,4
[A' their co:'',s" •`',..14; I
•e CanootP vji Di
,) illitri
4 Ili
in Unioo tl)
'it t, SO • lis e
ree -0 ! . ~. 0,4
,n -street.
,;$ a
Joiissi.o..f ite
N, Co.'? 4Of
33, Fleet-0 ,
1
k,, it;
litN(l
4_Pf),?t
wok