The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1832-12-28 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL ELECTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.
Ste,
rg iIIE letter I addressed to Mr. Nicholas Robi...n, chair-
man of Sir Howard Douglas's commit . ated the 24th
instant, I now confirm, although the editor the Al&ion has
been pleased to dispute its accuracy; a. - I • again very
briefly to state, that I never did a +. at "ti ouglasites
proposed, as the only chance left • r •flilejning the loss on the
day's poll, that both committees s '• id coence proceedings,
on the morrow, by paying the old freemen'the'ir wages, as an
inducement to them to vote for Sir Howard Douglas and Lord
Sandon.". I also deny that such a proposal was ever made" hi
the Douglasites; and I ask any candid man whether Wan lie
believed that I made the statement above alluded to, when I
must have been aware that fifteen to twenty of the most ho-
nourablegentlemen in the town, members of Lord Sandon's
and Sir Howard Douglas's committees, would at once have
cofitralicted the statement, and convicted me of a gratuitous
falsehood ?

kedependent, however, of this circumstance, which renders it
so improbable that I ever made the communication alluded to,
I hope I may lay claim to some regard for truth; and I think
I may,' without vanity, rely with safety on the opinion of those
by whoin I am known, that in their estimation I could not be
guilty Of the conduct imputed to me.
I will now state the substance of what I communicated to the
editor of the Albion, which was made in the presence of Mr. G.
Highfield, who is ready in any way to vouch for its accuracy.
It was to the following effect :—Mr. Bean, the outcry of bribery
-having been resorted to is utterly without foundation. Nothing
could have been more honourable than the conduct of Lord.
Sandon's and Sir Howard Douglas's committees.. I was at a
meetingattended by members of both, when it was stated, by
an individual in the room, that it was commonly reported that
our opponents were giving drink? and that if it was not met by
Adopting the same course, or giving the freemen 2s. .6d. for loss
Of time, or in lieu of wages, that the election would be lost.
Immediately after these remarks were made, the members of
both committees declared their disapproval of such a course,
and stated- that rather than resort to such means they would
incur thd hazard of a defeat. The editor of the Albion then de-
clarediliat he acquitted the committees of having been guilty
of bribery.
I.now take leave of this subject, and rely with confidence on
the just conclusion of an impartial public, resolved that what-
ever statements may hereafter be made, I shall not consider it
necessary to notice them.—Yours, &c.
gverton, Dec. 27, 1832. JAMES HEYWORT4.
.•
The following is the letter of the editor of the Albion, to
which Mr. Heyworth alludes.
IP THE ~.6DITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL COURIER. •
SJAb
TT is with:
much regret that I feel myself under the necessity
4.. of addressing you on a "question of personal veracity. But
the letter of Mr: James Heyworth, published in 'the Liverpool
papers, of this day, leaves me no alternative but either to sub-
mit to the imputation of having-fabricated a falsehood, or to
vindicate the truth of my statement by an appeal to facts—facts
which I shall be able fully to establish on unimpeachable testi-
mony.
In the Albion, of yesterday, the following statement' appeared:
" Otkthe same evening, (viz. Wednesday, the 12th instant,)
a dep4tietion -from Sir Howard Douglas's committee had an in-
terviewrvara. deputation froth that of Lord Sandon. Aldermen
LeylanCand Robinson were among the Inc:tubers of the titst,
and MI Heyworth and Mr. IL Edwards among those of the
second deputation. The Douglasitee pro d, as the only
chance left of retrieving the loss on the' ay's poll, that both
committees should commence proceedings, on the morrow, by
paying the old freemen their wage; as an inducement for them
to vete for Sir Howard Douglas •and Lord Sandon. The pro-
pqiial was rejected by. the Sandonites, who declared' it to be
thtir fixed determination not to' resort to bribery, in any shape,
in the hope of carrying his lordship's election."
Mr. Peter Wright, the la* agent to Sir Howard Douglas's
committee, having made a formal demand for the authority on
which the above statement had been made,-instatement which
he pronounced false,—l felt not the slightest hesitation in in-
forming him, that the paragraph had been written in consequence
of a conversation between myself, Mr. Heyworth, Mr George
Highfield, and Mr. Charles Birch, on the evening of Monday,
17th instant.' Mr.* Heyworth, on being applied to by Mr.
Wright, not only; it appears, denied verbally that he had ever
made stich a statement to me, -but actually put his name to a
written dOcifment, in which he .declares, that the statement is
utterly destitute of foundation."
'Were I to describe the scene which occurred in my office last
evening, shortly after Mr. Heyworth, had signed his denial, in
whiCh Mr. Heyworth, Mr. Highfield, and myself were the ac-
tors, the public would scarcely believe that two gentlemen
could, under any circumstances, have , deported themselves 'as
Mr. Heyworth and his friend did towards-me. But compassion
for human weakness impeli me to draw a veil over that painful
scene, and to forgive, If cannot forget, the abuse which those
gentlemen, under the irritated feelings of the moment, I fain
would hope, heaped upon me personally.
The point at issue between Mr. Heyworth and myself is, not,
whether a proposal " to pay the freemen their wages" was ac-.
tually made,, on Wednesday night, the 12th instant; but,
whether Mr. Heyworth did, in conversation with me,_ in the
presence.of other gentlemen, state that such a proposal had been-
made on that occasion. Mr. Heyworth, dextrously changing
the terms in which he described the proposal to have been made,
and substituting the phrase "resort to bribery," for the phrase
"to pay 16e freemen their wages," denies that he ever "authoriz-
ed" such' a statement as that which I have.published, and more-
ever says,* that it is " utterly destitute o foundation!'
A plain statement of facts will enable the public to judge
between Mr.,Heyworth•and myself.
On Monday :evening, the 17th instant, Mr. Heyworth, ac-
companied by Mr.. George Highfield, called at my office. Mr.
Charles Bireh was accidentally present at the time. What ob-
ject Mr. Heyworth had in view in calling upon me I can only
conjecture. I have not the slighest doubt, however, that his
,object was to state to me, personally, that I had, in my editorial
'capacity,
.beenr.guilty of an injustice to Lord Sandon's friends,
in expresiing,,rn my paper, my conviction, that treating' and
bribery had been practised at the late election. That this was
his object, the,whole tenor of his conversation and the tendency
of his statements, in reference to that event, fully satisfied both
myself and. Mr. Birch.

Mr. Heyworth, in that conversation, after naming several
gentlemen -who. composed the deputations on both sides, said,
calmly and deliberately, "A proposal was made- to us to pay
the men their wages." I interrupted him by observing, 4, Oh!
the old sum of shillings a day ?" alluding to a practice which
has long prevailed, at elections for this borough, of paying the
lower class of freemen that sum, for loss of time in attending to
poll, six shillings having been, I believe, when the practice
commenced, the daily wages (including a shilling* allowance)
of a journeyman shipwright. "I request," said. Mr. Heyworth,
in an authoritative manner, " that you will neither put words
into my mouth, nor interrupt me when I am speaking. No, j
sir," added Mr. Heyworth, "not six shillings, as you insinuate:
half-a-crown, or'so, was all that was contemplated. We indig-
nantly rejected the proposal," (namely, "to pay the freemen
their wages,") declaring that we would not be parties to any
such proceeding, and that we would rather Lord Sandon should
lose his election than be indebted for his return to unfair means.
But," continued Mr. Heywdrth, "the interview did not termi-
nate, until a proposal had proceeded from us, that, as Sir
Howard Douglas had not any chance of being returned and as
his continuance as a candidate would prejudice Lord Sandon,
his friends should withdraw him from the contest. Sir Howard's
friends rejected our proposal; declaring that they would keep
the poll open, as long as they could obtain a vote for him. This
Statement," concluded Mr. Hevworth, "is correct; and I have
no objection that the facts should'be made known."
Thus, if Mr. Heyworth's original statement to me was cor-
rect, the fadt, that a proposal, not "to resort to bribery," but
but itepay the freemen their wages," was made on Wednesday
night, the 12th instant, is established; or, it that gentleman's
original statement was incorrect, that he made such a state-

NORWICH UNION
FIRE INSURANCE SOCIETY.

CAPITAL, £500,000.

THE Public are respectfully reminded, that all Insurauefs
renewable in the Liverpool Agency on the 25th of Dee.
must be paid at the Office, Exchange-street West, on or before
the 9th day of January next, or the Society will cease to be
liable for the sums insured.

FARMING STOCK
Continues to be insured as heretofore, namely, without the ave..
rage clause, or prohibiting the use of Thrashiug.Machines.
R. L. MILLER,
Surveyor of the NOrthern District.
Treasurers, SAML. HOPE, Esq. and Co., Bankers.
(cp. The Society's Engine for the Kamm USE, op rkiN TOWN
AND NXIGHROVRHOOD is stationed in Seel-street, opposite.
Saw mill.

• -

01112,41\ti0.,- A )
—10.44 e,
• \ltitir.. yi r-,- /
.N