The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-03 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

And you say you believe that they did not see you coming?— '
I do.
Is it an open street 7—lt is a street out of Dale-street up into
Tithebaru-street.
A public street ?—Yes.
And no person but those three persons and yourself were
then passing at the time, and you state to the Cimmittee that
you believe they did not see you?—l do not think they did.
Do you believe they did see you, or do you believe they did
not ?—I believe they did not.
What time of day was it 7—Between twelve and one o'clock.
Had you seen them standing talking there before?—No.
Did you see them meet in the street 7—They were met toge-
ther when I saw them.
You say you followed the gentleman ?—Yes, I did.
How far?—Not above the length of this room.
Where was it you caught hold of his coat?—Opposite Brett's
public-house.
How far is that from the place where you saw him ?—I think
it is two doors.
You told the gentleman you knew him 7—Yes, I did.
When was the next time you saw him ?—I have seen him
repeatedly.
Did you ever follow him again ?—Yes, on the Saturday I
did, I saw him at the Exchange, I enquired his name there of
a gentleman, and he gave his name as Mr. Cotton : I do not
know it was a gentleman that was talking to him, and when
he went into the news'-room, I asked his name once; the gen-
tleman asked me what I wanted to know for? I said, I did not
want any thing particular; I said, I thought he might be
young Mr. Horsfall, and he said, no, it was not.
How came you to tell my Learned Friend that you did not
know his name 7-1 do not know his name.
How came you not to tell my Learned Friend that you had
heard his name ?—I did on the Saturday, but 1 do not know
his name yet.
How came you not to tell that gentleman that you had heard
that his name was Cotton 7—lt might be a slip of the memory.
Are you subject to slips of memory?—No.
You went up to that gentleman and caught hold of his coat?
—Yes, I did.
What made you catch hold of his coat ?"—Because I was vexed-
to see money pass away Jiom me to the other ! ! !
How did you know what it was for ?—I did not know what
it was for, but I saw him decorated with ribbons, and I consi-
dered that it was bribery ! ! !
And so, because you saw one person put a sovereign into the
hand of another, you thought yourself justified in followine
this gentleman and'catching hold of. him by the coat 7—Yes, I
did so.
You had not heard what had passed between them?—No,
only he said, " recollect you do not know me," clapping him
on the shoulder, and like a seafaring-man said " no. '
You were anxious about finding out the bribery?—No, Ili
was not.
Then what made you go and catch hold of his coat?—Be-
cause I was vexed!
What brought you here, exertion or anxiety?—A paper
brought me here.
Who did you tell first of this?—Some people in Castle-
street, and I heard no more about it till I was sent for by Mr.
Thornley's committee.
When did you tell that ?—On the Thursday afternoon.
On what day was this?—On the Thursday, on the same day.
Who was it you told it to ?—I do not know.
Where was it ?—Opposite the. Change, in the crowd.
Did you mention it publicly ?—I did
Did you know any person there at the time ?—Yes, I knew
a good many.
Tell me one that you knew ?—There was one, but I do not
know whether I mentioned it to him or not and his name was
Hunter.
The you do recollect the name of one person you told it to
that night?—No, I cannot say that I did tell him, but that
was the name of the person that came from Thoruely's com-
mittee to me.
Then he was not one of the persons that you told in. the first
instance T—N o! ! !
Now, 'can you tell me any person to whom you communi-
cated this on Thursday ?--Not by name.
Did you know the name of one of the persons ?—I do not
think 1 did.
Were you acquainted with any person that you mentioned it
to ?—I believe not!
You said there was more than one sovereign ; how many
were there ?—I cannot say, but there were four or five, I dare

say.
Did you tell the sovereigns as they passed from hand to
hand, or did you see them in the hand ?—I saw them pass out
of one hand into the other.
How many of them ran down do you suppose ?—I cannot
tell, but I am sure there were four or five.
Will you swear there were not ten or twelve ?—I do not
think there was.
Did you hear the chink of. them?—l do not think I did.
Did the man in the blue jacket say any thing?—The man in
the blue coat thanked him, he said, " no, Sir," the other said,
" recollect you do nut know me," " oh, no," he said, and
thanked him.
That was all that you heard ?—Yes.
You said that when you asked this gentleman's name, they
told you Cotton ?—Yes.
Was it Cotton or Colton ?--Cotton.
You are sure of that?—Yes.
Re-Examined by Mr. Rushton.
You said you did not know the gentleman's name, have you
ever pointed him out to anybody as the person that came to
demand the money since ?—I pointed him out this last week.
To whom ?—To Mr. Oglethorpe.
Have you any doubt whatever that the man you pointed out
to Mr. Oglethorpe was the man that gave the money in Vernon
Street ?—None at all.
Committee.—W hat situation in life are you in ?—A tailor.
Journeyman tailor ?—I work for Mr. Richardson, I don't
work in the shop.
You are nut a master tailor I—l am not, I do a little masters'
work, and I work for him likewise.
Where do you live ?—ln Christian-street now.
Where did you rive at the time of the election Adling-
ton-street.
How far was that from the corner of the street that you met
those people ?—lt was not longer than this room.
Do not the working people go a good deal through this 2
I de not know
Is not it a street of a good deal of thoroughfare ?—Yes.
Do a good many working people• go through there?—Yes, I
dare say they do.
Was it not just about their dinner hour?—Yes, it was just
about half-past twelve.
The witness withdrew.
Josnus. OGLETHORPE was called in and examined by Mr.
Rushton, as follows:—
Are you a sheriff's officer in Liverpool 2—l am.
Do you know Allan Bland, the witness who has just been
examined here P—l do.
Did you accompany Allan Bland to enquire for any person ?
—I did.
Did Bland point out any person to you?—He did.
Did lie say for what reason he pointed him out ?—lie did, he
said he knew the gentleman perfectly well, hut not his name ;
he went on 'Change with me, and I saw him standing by Mr.
Currie to identify him, I knew the gentieman perfectly well,
and to make Bland and myself perfectly sensible of his name,
I asked three gentlemen on 'Change his name. •
What is his name ?—Kyme Revues, I think it is.
Do you know where that gentleman lives ?—I know where
his office is.
Where is it ?—ln King-street, he is a partner with Mr. Bar-
ton, a ship-broker.
The witness withdrew.
Mr. JAMES TREVLLYAN RaYNES was called in, and exa-
mined as follows :
What are you ?—A ship broker. • •
Do you live at Liverpool?—l do.
Where is your counting-house ?—ln South John-street
Does it look into King-street?—lt does.
Are you in partnership with a gentleman of the name of
Barton t—Yes.
Is the firm Barton and Raynest—Yes.
Is there any other firm of that name iu Liverpool 2—No.
Do you attend the Exchange P—l do.
Do you recollect, on the second day of the election, giving a
seafaring man in Vernon-street a sovereign P—No, 1 never did.
Did you give any man a sovereign in Vernon-street on that
day ?—No.
Did you give any man a sovereign any where else ?-No.
Or any money at all?—No.
Did you say to any person,
—No, I never did.
And he did not say to you, "I do not know you, and I thank,
you Sir ?—No.
Were you followed by any person who said that he knew
you?—No.
If any person has said that, it is altogether untrue, and with-
out foundation ?—Yes.
• Cross-examined by Mr. Rushton.
How wore you dressed during the election?—l cannot re-
member.
Did you wear a blue coat?—No.
Did you wear a black coat cannot answer that. I have
a brown coat and a black coat, and I cannot remember which I

" recollect you do not know me

wore upon that occasion : I sometimes wore one awl sometime te
another.
Committee.—Did you say to any man, "Damn you, the other
party would bribe, too, if they could afford it?—No, certainly net.
Do you know Allan Bland at all ?—Yes.
The witness withdrew.

DEPRECIATION OF THE CURRENCY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Stn,—We hear in all directions of the increasing pressure of
taxation, the inability to bear it, and the necessity for a change of
system; how far these representations may be well founded, it is
not for me to attempt to ascertain, if relief can be given, wheie
the necessity for it. may exist, it is to be expected that Parlia-
ment will endeavour to afford it, but this can only be done with
a due regard to the claims of justice and the maintenance of
solemn public engagements.
I am led to make these remarks by what has litely passed hi
Parliament, on the subject of a chhnge in our monetary system,
and under this expression, the depreciation of the currency has
been proposed and supported. Those who do so have said, that
Peel's Bill, which was-passed in 1819, and that fixed the period
for resuming cash payments by the standard that existed in
1797, -when the Bank Restriction Bill was passed, was alike dis.
honest and unjust in principle, as it required the payment of
debts in gold which had been contracted in paper currency, and
I learn by a leading article in the last STANDARD, that you are
the advocate of these doctrines; there you loudly complain that
no sympathy was evinced for the debtor, when he was robbed by

this bill in 1819.
It is not my intention to detail the particulars of the evils
which followed the measure of restriction in 1797: the mass of
irresponsible, paper circulation to which it gave rise, with which
the.'country was inundated; the wild and unbounded specula...
tions for which it supplied the means ; the ultimate destruction
of confidence' which ensued ; the panics and convulsions in the
mercantile and monied communities which it produced, and the
ruin it entailed on thousands of its credulous victims ; these
events must be too deeply impressed in the minds of the living
survivors to render it necessary to do so : neither do I intend to
enter the political arena, to discuss the wisdom or folly of the
measures which caused the Bank Restriction Act to be'passed,
in order to enable. the Government to provide means (in the
precious metals) for subsidizing foreign states, granting foreign
loans, and maintaining large fleets and armies in foreign coun-
tries, in the prosecution of the war in which we were then en-
gaged, but my object is to recal to the recollection of those who
are disposed to support the doctrine of depreciation, that the
Bank Restriction Act, whilst it protected that body from being
called on to pay their notes in cash, also fi.ced a limit for the
duration of that system, and a period when payments in cash of
standard value were to be resumed in all cases.

It must be kept in mind, that it was on the faith of this na-

tional engagement the public and private creditors lent their
money, and it was with a perfect knoWledge of it that all loans
of both descriptions were contracted. When the borrowers
consented to take their loans in paper currency, it was with the
perfect knowledge, that if the bank restriction should have ter-
minated when they came to repay, that they must do so in cash
of standard value : how then can they complain of injustice
where these engagements still remain undischarged?
It was to fulfil the stipulations.of the bank restriction bill, and.
to uphold the good faith of the country, that Peel's act was
passed in 1819; this was done after repeated postponements, in
all of which the obligation to return to cash payments was fixed
and declared; not to have resumed cash payments, when in
the judgment of the legislature the country was in a state com-
petent to do so, after such previous pledges and solemn engage-
ments entered into with all creditors both public and private,
would have been alike a violation of public faith and private
honesty. It is, evident, then, that these engagements cannot be
cancelled or altered without the consent of the lenders, and no:
such consent has been given.
It is to no purpose that men like Sir John Sinclair furnish

the public with statements in figures to show the advantages
which eventually arose to those who risked their capitals in
loans during the war ; when these loans were made, the terms
were commensurate with the risks the lenders had to run ; they
had only half the bargain to make, the public the other ! Could
money have been procured on better teems elsewhere, it would

not have been taken from them—the terms and conditions were

clear and defined, and all the creditors require is, that they
shall be complied with; to this they have a clear and indisput-
able right, although doing so may be attended with either loss
or inconvenience to their debtors.'
That these engagements have turned out to be favourable to
the lenders, they may be said to owe to good fortune. Let us
suppose the battle of Waterloo to have been lost, and that the
North of Europe, as well as the South, had in consequence
again fallen under the power of France, at a time when every
nerve we possessed had been strained to the utmost effort, every
resource and means at the point of .exhaustion. And our utmost
energies placed on the die, would not the risk of national bank-
ruptcy have become alarming, and the value of our public secu-
rifles have been sunk to a Very low ebb ? What then, in such
case would have been the situation of the creditors of the State,

and would they not have had to Struggle with ruiri.? Fortunately
fur all,,that battle was gained ;• the power of France was hum-
bled, peace and confidence were restored, and to their fair and
honest share of the fruits to which they have, contributed, and
the redemption of the pledges given to them, the public credi-
tors are well entitled—to withhold or to diminish them, by de-
preciating the currency, would' b'e• to forfeit public faith and
character.
I shall not pursue this subject further at present, or proceed

to show the powers that were' given to the lenders-to sell,- and
transfer their debts ; and, that few,. if an Y of the original
parties now remain creditors of the .State; as these securities
are daily changing hands:the• present holders.would become
the victims of injustice.—Yours, &c.
2ith April, 1833. MERCATOR.