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

THE LI VER POOL STANDARD

LIVERPOOL ELECTION.

SPEECH OF MR. NICHOL,

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,

IN DEFENCE OF THE BURGESSES.

Mr. NICHOL—I am afraid I must now trouble the committee
with some remarks, and I am afraid, at the same time, I must
apologize if I run into what the committee may consider un-
necessary length, because I have not seen the evidence from
the time it was given till the present moment, and I am not
therefore prepared to curtail my remarks as I might have been
if I hall had a more ample opportunity of examining the evi-
dence. I will, in the first instance, dispose of one or two
preliminary points; so that I may leave myself clear to consider
the different elections which have been the subject of discussion
and examination before this committee.

In the first instance, I will only just thus far allude to the
charge of trafficking in places. As I before said, it bears in no
way upon the freemen; and nothing can induce me to say a
single word more upon the subject.
Sir, the next charge which has been introduced is a charge
which I think has been very unnecessarily introduced, and I
must say, in my judgment very invidiously introduced. It is
a charge and an investigation into the conduct of the Corpora-
tion of Liverpool. The intention, it is true, has been disavowed
to make any charge against the Corporation; but if the com-
mittee look at the whole scope and tendency of the evidence
which has been adduced, they will see that this investigation
has been much more directed to an attack upon the Corporation
itself than upon the freemen generally.
Sir, this opinion is not only derived from the tendency and
scope of the evidence, - but the conunittee will recollect that
yesterday Mr. Myers gave in evidence, that when he was served
with the subpoena, the person that served him, Mr. Duncan, the
partner of the agent in this prosecution, told him that the en-
quiry was more directed against the Corporation than against
the freemen of Liverpool. The other side certainly have
varied the ground of their charge a little during the course of
this investigation. The first day or two, and in the early part
of the investigation, was directed chiefly to degrade and vilify
the freemen. The latter part of it has been taking up the de-
fence of the freemen and asserting their right in contradiction
to the rights of the Corporation. Now,, sir, this is really a
change of system for which I was a little unprepared. At one
moment they are the prosecutors of the freemen, and at the
other moment they are their protectors.
Sir, in this investigation they have gone into all sorts of en-
quiries ; they have examined as to the amount of the pro-
perty of the Corporation and their estates, the manage-
ment of their estates and the management of the corporation
funds, and the advantages that the mayor would derive from
being mayor of the town. They have enquired into the consti-
tution of the Common Council, and they have directed their
charges not only against the Corporation, as a body, but nearly
against every individual member of that Corporation. Sir, I
must say, that in every one 'of these respects, in my humble
judgment, the attack has most entirely. failed. As to the ma-
nagement of the corporate funds, it is in evidence before you
that the -whole.,of those funds, with a very small exception of
about £2OOO a-year, are employed in 'the improvement and
beautifying of the town—in adding facilities to its trade, and in
every way benefiting the inhabitants of the town. It is in evi-
dence before you, that no part of the funds have been applied
to electioneering purposes; it is in evidence before you, that
the accounts of those funds are annually laid before the great
body of the freemen, and printed and published and circulated
amongst them; it is in evidence, as to contracts, that the con-
tracts for all large works are let out by sealed tenders, and, as
far as I can see in this case, the whole management of the
Corporation is clearly and distinctly proved to be as frugal as it
is possible.
Now, I have said that this investigation is unnecessary ; I
must say further that it is peculiarly unnecessary at the present
moment, when, in answer to an address from the house, re-
quiring that a -commission should be appointed to enquire into
corporations, a commission has been appointed which has been
directed to proceed with the utmost possible despatch, so that
Parliament may be able to legislate upon the subject early in
the ensuing session. I must say that this investigation be-
comes unnecessary, that it has saddled the country with a very
useless expense, and when it is particularly considered that my
two learned friends on my right hand are members of that
commission, I do not think that there was any occasion to
enter into it upon the present occasion, and I will say that, in
my judgment, it has not been carried on with the greatest
spirit of candour and fairness possible.
Sir, I have said also that there have been attacks upon indi-
viduals. The committee will remember the sort of insinuations
which were thrown out against Alderman Wright. Attempts
were made, very laboured attempts, to show that Alderman
. Wright received a ticket, and was consentient to the bribery in
1827; that gentleman was put into the box yesterday; he dis-
tinctly and positively denies that he was consentient to any act
of bribery upon that occasion ; he positively declared that in no
single instance in his life had he given money to a man to vote :
he stated that during the whole of that electiotk,he was upon the
hustings, acting for Mr. Porter, who was then ill; that during
that election the duty of returning thanks to the different
freemen and of shaking hands with them for Mr. Porter, fully
occupied his time; that in the evening he went with them to
Mr. Porter's house, and there made a speech; and that he was
so exhausted with the labours of the day, that he never went to
any committee-room or was in any way engaged in any part of
that contest. It also appears that at the close of that contest he
presided at a public dinner, and that upon that occasion his
health was proposed in a very laudatory speech by Mr. Ratcliff.
Now, sir, whether the old maxim of laudare se vani, vituperce
stulti est, applies to this case, I leave to the committee to decide.
Now, sir, it is fair, in justice to Mr. Wright, alio to state that
in the election of 1830 he was in no way engaged; he was at
that time ill; he was taken from a sick bed to vote for Mr. Swart;
and in no way whatever did he interfere in that election. Mr.
Wright, therefore, stands omni exceptione major; and the attack
that has been made upon him does not injure him so much as it
does those that have made it.

Equally clear does it appear in my humble judgment that the
inuendos and insinuations which have been thrown out against
the other magistrates of that borough reflect but little credit
upon those who have made them. The evidence adduced in
vindication of these gentlemen proves that they were the most
respectable and highest merchants and gentlemen in the town
'of Liverpool. There is no trait in any part of their life that
has been pointed out, or that could be pointed out, that in any
sway has reflected upon them, and, therefore, I do say that these
general insinuations and inuendos against them rebound back
with very'great force against those who make them, and that
the evidence which has been brought forward upon this occasion
redounds more to the credit of those who have been attacked
than of those who have ventured to asperse their character.
Sir, whether they have aspersed their character or not I will
not stop to inquire—the attempt has been made, whether it has
succeeded or not : as my learned friend near me suggests, they
" hint a fault and hesitate dislike."

Sir, another sort of charge which has been made against the
Corporation is, that they have exerted influence in elections.
Now it is most clearly and distinctly proved that the Corpora-
tion in no way interfered in elections as a corporate body, and
those individuals who did exercise any influence in an election
merely exercised that influence which arises from an interchange
of kindly offices between the employer and the employ.ed; and
I for one, and I am sure every one that admires our mixed con-
stitution, would be the last in the world to wish that that sort of
influence should be destroyed. If that influence is used with-
out doing violence to the conscience, and without doing injus-
tice to the feelings of individuals, I say that it is rather corn-
mendable
and praiseworthy than in any. way to be blamed ; I
am sure that is the doctrine of our constitution, and I am sure
that that was the doctrine which was held forth at all times
during the discussion of the Reform Bill, and must, as long as
our constitution remains, be the doctrine of the law of England.
Sir. I have now shortly attempted to defend the Corporation
from the attacks that have been made upon it. I only say that
in my humble judgment they have come forth from this search-
ing investigation perfectly untainted, and that this investiga-
tion, so far from doing them harm, must set them right in the
eyes of the world, and convince them that the imputations
which have been so lavishly scattered about for the last three
years were unfounded.
Sir, I will now just say a few words upon a few points of law.
Some attempt has been made to show, and to treat as bribery
the non deduction of the day's wages at the end of the week,
and entertainment given to the electors, without any previous
promise, after the election was over. Now I can shew the com-
mittee, I think to their full satisfaction, that that has never
been held to be bribery; on the contrary, that it has been held,
by a committee of the House of Commons, on the most deli-
berate consideration, perfectly innocent. I refer to the case of
Cirencester, which is reported in Ist Peckwell's Election Cases,
page 467. - That case occurred some years ago, in 1802 : it was
Cproposed, on the part of the petitioners, to prove that a Mr.
npps, also one of Mr. Beach's committee, immediately after
the election, near the hustings, and in the presence of the sit-
ting members, declared to the voters that they might receive
half a guinea each instead of a dinner. It was not pretended
that this could be connected with a prior promise; and it was
objected that this evidence was inadmissible, because such an
act did not constitute any offence : and the case of Sudbury,
Lord Glenbervie, 137, was cited as a stronger case than the
present: there the petitioners stated they could prove a very
public distribution of money among the voters for the sitting
members, after the election, but as they did not say they had
any proof either of money being given, or promises of money
being made by them previous to or during the election, the
committee seemed to think this would not affect their seats, and
no evidence was gone into on this head. The case is also
summed up in this manner.—" The counsellor the sitting mem-
bers was prevented from making his reply (so clear were the
committee upon it), by the committee declaring their decided
opinion that the evidence, if admitted, would amount to no-
thing, and that the statute would not bear the construction put
upon it by the petitioners." Therefore solemnly deciding that
unless there was a previous promise, this sort of entertainment
after the election, or non deduction of wages, or any circum-
stance of that sort, would not vitiate the election; and I beg the
committee to remember, that in no one case whatever, except
the elections of 1827 and 1830, is there any single instance of a
previous promise being made.
Sir, the next point to which I will call the attention of the
committee is the payment of fees for the admission of free-
men. Now it is, perhaps, almost unnecessary to go into this,
because it does so happen that the only cases of payment for
the admission of freemen were at the elections of 1827 and 1830,
in the former of which 430 were adtaitted, and in the latter 800;
but still it is not fair that any odium should attach to freemen
upon the ground of those payments, for I can shew to this com-
mitted that these payments of fees have been declared again
and again to be perfectly legal.
CHAIRMAN.—it is unnecessary, I think.
Mr. NicnoL.—Then the committee are of opinion that the
payment of fees is legal. There was a case in 1774, and there
was the case of Bristol in 1786, and the case of Worcester in
1819, where Colonel Davies's agent (the agency being distinctly
proved) paid a large amount of the admission fees; Lord Al-
thorp was upon the election committee ; and in that case the
committee decided that the payment of admission fees, without
any previous promise as to the vote, did not vitiate the election.
And the committee will recollect that in this case, upon the evi-
dence of Mr. Pennington and Mr. Whittle, it was proved that
there was no previous knowledge. In that case, of Colonel
Davies, he was declared the sitting member,. and it was held
not to be bribery, but that it was merely affording the freemen,
in the same way as the payment of travelling expenses, an op-
portunity of exercising their franchise. If, the committee wish
me I will go into that point.
CHAIRMAN.—Yes' I mistook the feeling of the committee.
Mr. NICHOL.—The first case is in the Ist Dougfas '267 ; that
in the Bristol case, "on the head of bribery the facts came out
to be that a committee of gentlemen who were in the interests
of Mr. Burke and Mi. Crayer had paid the fees of admission for
the new freemen with money raised by subscription for that
purpose, but that neither of the candidates had subscribed or
paid any of that money, and that no promise had been desired
of the freemen so admitted to vote for any one as the condition
of their fees being paid. On Monday, the 20th of February, the
committee, by tir chairman, informed the house that they
had determined that the two sitting members were duly elected."
The next case I will refer to is in Male 352; they state the
Bristol case again, and say that there had been no contrary de-
cision ; they then state the .Worcester case: "In the Worcester
case, in 1819, the point which was chiefly relied upon after bri-
bery and treating was that of paying for the admissions of free-
men who were admitted after the election began ; the admission
of freemen during the
.poll was not complained of, but it was
proved that the admissions were regularly paid for by an agent
of the sitting member; the committee however (as in the Bris-