The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-10-07 00:00:00

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

A correspondent suggests that the publishers of the Mercury
in ann .oricing last week that "their pages contained the
greatest quantity of letter-press ever issued from the provin-
cial press," ought in fairness to have added, at the greatest

Ebt Eiberpool gPtanTiarb.

TUESDAY MO PRYING, OCT. 7, 1845

The nefarious doings of the Anti-Corn-Law Lea-
gue, at the Registrations now going on through-
out the country, are well calculated to raise the
question whether the derangement of the whole
machinery of our representative system is not en-
dangered by the continued toleration extended to
that Body. At every Revising Court, in every
borough and county, we see objections by hundreds
and even thousands served indiscriminately upon
the Conservative voters, and supported by its paid
agents. We see men of undoubted qualification
dragged from their houses and business, or from
their sickbeds, to endure the badgering of lawyers ;
or struck from the lists—robbed of a great consti-
tutional right—as the penalty of non-attendance.
Perjuries the most awtful—perjuries which cannot
be unknown to the League's agents—are unhesitat-
ingly resorted to for the advancement of their
objects; and all this the work of a body at whose
head are Ministers of Religion, merchants, and
gentlemen, otherwise of unimpeachable character,
whose personal participation in such practices
would draw down upon them the reprorobation of
the entire community in which they are now res-
pected. Is there any honest member of the Lea-
gue, we ask, who could sleep comfortably in his
bed, with the consciousness that he has been a
participator—for qui facit per alienurufacit per se—
in the getting up of the scene of wickedness we
shall here, as briefly as possible, bring before our
readers.

The locality is the Revising Barrister's Court,
for the Northern Division of Warwickshire, in
which, indiscriminate notices of objection have
been sent, from the League office in Manchester, to
upwards of seven hundred freeholders, purporting
to be signed by William Worthington, of Cow-lane,
Coventry. The first party presenting himself was
a gentleman of property, dragged from a sick bed
to prove his disputed qualification ; and, on the
service of the notice being proved, an agent of the
League produced to the court Worthington's writ-
ten authority, to appear for him and support the ob-
jection. The objector himself, who is described as
"an aged, diminutive decrepit object," was next
called, and swore distinctly that the signature
" William Worthington" was his hand writing. In
cross-examination he was brought to admit his ac-
quaintance with a certain Benjamin Stafford, who,
he said, came to his house whilst he was "a
signin of" the notices. Next, he admits that Staf-
ford " took up a pen and signed some of them ;"
and being urged with respect to the number so
signed, says "he signed one or two, or two or
three," adding, in answer to another question, "he
wasn't in the house time enough to sign one
hundred." At this stage of the proceedings the man
Stafford was brought into the room; and, then, be
" can't say that he didn'nt sign two hundred."
Ultimately, he "can't swear he didn't sign five
hundred," but qualifies the negative admission by
adding again "he wasn't in the house long enough
to do that." He is then asked the length of time
Stafford was in the house, and states that " he came
between eight and nine o'clock, and left about half-
past ten the same night." The following portion of
the cross-examination we give at length :

Mr. Whateley. Will you swear he was not in your
house signing notices until between four and five o'clock
the next morning ?
The witness here hesitated, he first looked at Mr. Mor.?
ris, then at Mr. Whateley, evidently wishing himself at
Cow-lane, Coventry.
Mr. Whateley. Come, Sir, answer the question.
Witness. He was in and out. (Considerable sensation
in Court).

Mr. Whateley. How many times was he in and out of
your house ?

Witness

He was in and out all night. (Great sensa-

Barrister. Why you said he left your house at half-
past ten o'clock at night.
Mr. Whateley. When you told me he left your house
between nine and ten o'clock at night,—why did you not
say he came back again ?
Witness. I didn't just give it a thought.
Mr. Whateley. What time did he leave your house

for good ?
Witness. 1 left him there when I went out

Mr. Whateley. What time did you go out?
Witness. At five o'clock in the morning. (Great sen-
sation.)

Are not these contradictions made on oath posi-
tively shocking ? The following portion of Wor-
thington's statement we must also give, as descriptive
of the mode in which the League conduct their
Registration business :
"Mr. Berry (a Leaguer of course) came into my house,
and asked me if I could get a person to assist me to sign
the notices ; he asked me if I had got ever a young man
in the house wot could write ; asked me if 1 had a son ;
he said I should find a person to assist me a bit. I didn't
send to fetch Stafford ; I didn't agree for my daughter to
fetch Stafford ; I didn't say anything against Stafford
being sent for; It was my daughter who suggested
Stafford's name. Stafford came in about an hour after
Mr. Berry left my house; I didn't send to fetch him;
I can't say if Mr. Berry sent for him, or whether he came
on his own account ; I can't say whether my son or
daughter went for him ; I have no doubt one went for
him. I cannot tell how many notices of objection for the
Northern Division of this County I signed with my own
hand ; I began on a Thursday. I am certain I didn't
begin to sign 'em on a Saturday ; I began on a Thursday ;
I left off signing on Sunday morning, at five o'clock. I
can't say how many I signed that time before I stopped ;
I think I signed upwards of a thousand. I can't tell how
many Stafford signed ; he signed a many ; I can't tell if
he signed five hundred ; I can't tell which of them he
signed, they were all mixed together ; what I signed
myself. I wrote with a steel peu ; I didn't examine never
a one of 'em. I didn't tell Stafford to imitate my hand-
writing ; I told him to be careful what he was doing on,
and to write on the notices " William Worthington,' and
nothing else. I didn't tell him to write as ;much like me
as he could ; on my oath I didn't tell him to imitate my
hand-writing ; I didn't request him to make his writing
like mine ; I did lay before him one of the notices I bad
signed, and I then said to him, sign like this, and be
careful you sign nothing else.' "

_
Now, mark the iniquity displayed in this state-
ment. The League first suborn this wretched old
man (according to his own sworn testimony,) to be-
come their tool, and to lend his name to their host
of vexatious notices. Their agent, suggests his
having some one—any young man that could write—
to sign his name to them. They, thus, must have
known that the objections were not what they pur-
ported to be ; that a large portion of them were
forgeries ; and yet they brought the man Worthing-
ton into court to swear to their genuineness.
It may be said, however, perhaps the notice of
objection served upon Mr. Osborn, and sworn to
by Worthington, was one of those which he signed
with his own hand. Alas, there is not even this
hole to creep out of, as the following extract from
the report of the case will show :

Mr. Whateley then produced the notice of objection
which Mr. Osborn had received, the signature on which,
" William 'Worthington," the witness had previously
sworn was in his (Worthington's) hand-writing.
Mr. Whateley : lon have sworn, Worthington, that
the signature on that notice is in your hand writing.
The witness here became greatly embarrassed and con-
fused, and after looking, first at Stafford and then at Mr.
Morris, be tremblingly said, "No, sir, it is not in my
hand-writing. (Very great sensation throughout the
court.)

No wonder there was " very great sensation
throughout the court ;" but do we hear any thing of
the League agents throwing down their briefs in
disgust, after such an admission of the utter worth-
lessness of their main witness ? One of them, in-
deed, made a chew of virtue, by declaring that he
was "not retained in this case;" but this same
gentleman, at the commencement of the same case,
produced to the court Worthington's written au-
thority to appear for him; and throughout, he
acted according to the report of the case, which
we extract from the Birmingham Advertiser, as
Worthington's counsel. And so far from feel-
ing any disgust at the gross perjury of their
hireling, they called him on the next 'and suc-
ceeding cases—in most of which, by the bye,
they failed and had to pay the costs for frivolous
objections, which came out of the pocket of a Man-
chester League official, who attended for the pur-
pose—and at the close of the day's proceedings they
provided Mr. Worthington with money to return to
Cow-lane.

The same course of wholesale objection has been