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

Sir, the question is, then, not whether thosc• elections were
pure, but whether they have shown that the purity of those elec-
tions proceeded from the dread of punishment? The question
is, whether they have shown the true and real motives of the
conduct of those men upon those occasions ? Now, I take it to
be a clear and indisputable position in law, that when a con-
duct can be accounted for by two motives, the one purity, the
other impurity, the oue innocent, and the other guilty, you are
bound, in the absence of direct proof of a guilty motive, to at-
tribute it to honest and innocent motives. The law of Eng-
land, in every case, presumes a man innocent till he is provel
to be guilty. It is not till he is surmised, or till he is suspected
to be guilty, but till it is proved by positive evidence that he
was guilty. I say that in looking at the evidence-you will find
in no part of it any trace that the motive that induced the men
to act purely was merely terror and dread of punishment.
Sir, the first election was the election in Mav, 1831, and was
a general election. Now, I have proved that Mr. :.'wart's ex-
penses in that election were £1405 ; that no part of that was
expended in the way of corruption. Mr. Denison's ex-
penses I do not know what they were, but there was no fund.
All his influential friends were unwilling that he should be put
forward, and so bankrupt were they in credit, that at last a few
independent electors subscribed twenty-three pounds to get up
a band. Going with that band through the town without any
personal canvass,—without any previous application,—without
Mr. Denison being present at all,—without any money being
paid—Mr. Denison was elected by a triumphant majority.
Where, then, is the trace at that election of any corruption
securing the election. General Gascoyne, it is admitted, paid
no money.
But it is said, m
" Oh, but :General Gascoyne lost the election
because he paid no one ." Sir, this is mere surmise, conjec-
ture, and assumption. 'lye facts all bear directly in the con-
trary direction. General Gascoyne came into the town some
days before. He had just proposed that resolution in the House
of Commons respecting. the reduction in the number of the
members of the House of Commons, the majority upon which
was the cause of the dissolution of Parliament, and the cause
of that election taking place, to ascertain the opinion of the
country generally upon the question of reform. General Gas-
coyne, upon going into the town, was received with hootings
and hisses. He went, accompanied by the mayor, to church
upon the Sunday; he was again received with hootings and
hisses, and upon his return from church on that day, in the lan-
guage of the witness, he was treated in the most ferocious man-
ner.

Sir, it is proved further that during that election there were
riots in the town ; riots not got up by the electors, but by the
Irish, and by casual residents in the town; that so much was
the freedom of election destroyed at that time, that the person
that represented Geuerai Gascovne upon the hustings, at that
time, thought it right for the safety of the town to put a stop to
the poll; but not till Ewart and benison had got a large ma-
jority. Mr. Knipe says that no money or drink was given by
General Gascoyne upon that occasion. In that he is completely
and entirely confirmed by every witness ; but he says a great
deal of money was spent upon the other side, and that at the
corner of every street the public-houses were kept open. Now,
if ever there was a distinct, Complete, entire falsehood; it is that
assertion. 'Every witness has said that it was the most pure
election possible, and that if any witness has said that the pub-
lic-houses were kept open at the corner of every street, he has
asserted that which is directly false.
Now, sir, further than this no other witness was produced to
attack that election, and no other witness has attacked it; and
yet I find Mr. Rathbone himself, the apostle of purity ; Mr.
Rathbone, who has at all times denounced bribery at an elec-
tion, in every shape, was so pleased with the conduct of these
men at this election, returning two decided- reformers, and re-
jecting their old, their long-tned and their faithful, though, I
am sorry to say, their Tory representative—Mr. Rathbone was
so pleased at the victory of his party, that he said that the free-
men had for ever nobly redeemed their character; and he was
supported by that patriot of the Liverpool Mercury, Mr. Egerton
Smith, who
_pronounced that the town of Liverpool was bound
to petition Parliament against the disfranchisement bill, be-
cause the men had so nobly conducted themselves upon this
occasion.

Then, sir, I stand in this position, that after the general elec-
tion of 1831, by the testimony of those who are now desirous to
disfranchise the freemen, the freemen of Liverpool did not de-
serve disfranchisement. 1 do not stand only on Mr. Rathbone's
testimony upon that occasion, but I stand upon the testimony
produced in this box, and I call upon you, looking. at the evi-
dence as to the case, to say whether there was any impurity in
that elect on. Then, sir, it comes to this, that it was established
that at that time they had not done anything that deserved dis-
franchisement; and Mr. Rathbone himself must have known all
that they had done at that time, because the presentment of the
grand jury, in 1827, had taken place ; the report of the com-
mittee of the House of Commons, in the election of 18.30, had
also been published, and therefore Mr. Rathbone knew all the
previous sins of the freemen • and Mr. Rathbone, with this com-
plete knowledge, says that die freemen are totally undeserving
of disfranchisement. Then, sir, if it rests there, it is for the
other side to show that they have done anything since to render
them liable to disfranchisement. It is for him to show that sub-
sequent elections have been so tainted with corruption that the
men forfeited that noble redemption of their character to which
Mr. Rathbone alluded.

Now, sir, I am sorry to say that I cannot take Mr. Rath-
bone's assertions for this. I must look at the evidence; and
therefore I will go to the next election, the mayor's election in
1831; Mr. Sandbach's election, which was also said to be a
phantom election. It turns out that so far from it being a phan-
tom election, the poll lasted from ten in the morning till eleven
at night; and. that Mr. Currie, the opponent of Mr. Sandbach,
was proposed by Mr. Francis Jordan and Captain Colquitt.
Therefore that has no pretence to be called a phantom election.
Sir, I believe the only evidence as to that election is an offer
of money by Mr. T. B. Horsfall to Mr. Ashburner. Mr. Ash-
burner said that Mr. Horsfall offered him some money, and
that he declined it. His evidence was very loose upon many
points; and Mr. T. B. Horsfall says positively that the only
sum of money he offered Mr. Ashburner was the sum of twenty
shillings for coach hire, for bringing the burgesses up; and the
whole expenses of the election were proved to be under two
hundred pounds. There was no money given for treating or
drink, and that is confirmed by Mr. Tomkinson and many
other witnesses. _ _

Now I will only remind Mr. Rathbone of a little inconsis-
tency on his part. Mr. Rathbone has declared again and again
the guilt of the election of 1830. From whom did that guilt
proceed? Was it from General Gascoyne ? No; it was from
Mr. Ewart and Mr. Denison. Mr. Rathbone.was arsubs6riber'
to Mr. Ewart's expenses.. I do not care what the amount of
his subscription might have beep. It might be ten or twenty
pounds; but it was adopting and recognising as candidate a
man whose election had been declared void upon the ground of
bribery and corruption. Therefore I do say there is the grossest
inconsistency in the conduct of Mr. Rathbone at that time, and
that Mr. Rathbone had forgotten all his natural antipathies
against.corruption in that case ; and, in the warmth of his poli-
tical feelings, forgotten this pure doctrine which he had before
held.

But, sir, let us hear no more of this nonsensical talking and
affectation about purity. The fact is, and it is clearly proved
by that subscription of Mr. Rathbone's to the election of Mr.
gwart, that Mr. Rathbone only approves of those proceedings
that give predominance to that party whose political tenets he
has espoused, aim that the whole of his proceedings are directed
to that object. . .

Sir, let not Mr. Harvey either talk of purity ; he is one of
the petitioners, but his hand is yet tainted by the payment of
£lBOO in the election of 1830, though he may now say that he
has done penance, and though he may now call himself a re-
pentant sinner. But let him extend the same degree of forgiveness
to those other persons who are the victims of his seduction. The
crime, as it is suggested to me, is not because they returned
Mr. Ewart in 1830 bribed, but because in 1831 they returned
Lord Sandon unhribed.
I now come to the election of Lord Sandon and Mr. Thornely,
and the committee will remember that at the election the
mania for reform had in some degree subsided; Lord Sandon
was canvassing the town seven weeks previous to the election,
and anyone who has ever witnessed the amiable, engaging, and
unpresuming manners of that nobleman, will not be surprised
at his winning the hearts and the affections of that constituency.
CHAIRMAN.—And a reformer also
Mr. NICHOL.—And a reformer also, to a certain extent.
Sir, it must be remembered that they are the principal gen-
tlemen in the town ; at that time they are those who employed
the greatest number of mechanics and artizans in the town.
Therefore, those persons found that all the gentlemen to whom
they had been accustomed, upon former occasions, to look up
with respect and affection, espoused upon that occasion Lord
Sandon's interest.
The only evidence to affect this election in any way is the
evidence of a bookseller; I think Mr. Taylor, who said the men
asked for bribes in that election, as they did in the former
election. Mr. Taylor, it will be remembered, received a very
just and well-merited reproof from one of the committee for the
flippant manner in which he gave his evidence respecting the
subscription to the former proceedings. Mr. Isaac Holmes
also said, that several men asked for money; and Mr. Haselden
said, that though he did not canvass, the canvassers told him
that they would not come for Mr. Thornely without money,
therefore Mr. Thornely was withdrawn. Now sir, what does
this amount to, supposing- the story is perfectly correct and
consistent, which I a little doubt. Ido not mean to impute
that Mr. Haselden did' not hear which of the canvassers stated
that, but I doubt whether the canvassers had any ground for
stating that. But supposing that it is true that they would not
come up without bribes for Mr. Thornely at that time, it only
proved that the influence of Mi. Thornely and his party in
Liverpool is all nothing, because it is proved that the freemen
were proceedingto poll fairly and independently for Lord San-
don. If it is untrue, cadet questio, there is no attack upon the
purity of the election. And really my honourable friends have,
I think, in their desire to attack the corporation, a little for-
gotten what is due to Mr. Thornely and to his party. I think
they have shown that Mr. Thornely's party exercises no influ-
ence in Liverpool. I believe that in no way arises from Mr.
Thornely's personal character, but the fact is, that Mr. Thornely
is one of those American merchants who, as we have heard,
are not quite so popular with the artizans as the West Indian
and the other interest.

But, Sir, the committee will remember the evidence of Mr.
Grant, one of Lord Sandon's committee. The demeanor and
manners of that gentleman in the box must have insured to
him the most entire confidence, and the most implicit reliance.
He stated positively that the expenditure on behalf of Lord
Sandon upon that occasion was £1403; and he stated that no
part of that sum was in any way expended in bribery and cor-
ruption. I need not call on the committee to look to the evi-
dence of any single witness in confirmation of Mr. Grant. I
am sure that his evidence, standing alone, has decided the purity
of that election. I beg the committee to read the account he
put in of the expenses of that election.
The next election is the election of Mayor iu 1832, and no
attack whatever has been made upon that election. Mr. Dobson,
the treasurer of the committee, was produced • he proves that
the expenditure Was under two hundred pounds, and that no
money whatever was expended in bribery or corruption.
Sir, these I believe are the principal witnesses in this case;
the other witnessess that we have produced, most respectable
persons, all confirm this, and establish beyond doubt that there
has been no bribery or corruption whatever, in any way, since
one thousand eight hundred and thirty. In one thousand
eight hundred ana thirty, as I have said, the guilt was not con-
fined to the lower orders ; it spread far and wide, and the com-
mittee will recollect that at that election there was no differ-
ence of political teeing scarcely ; there might be a shade, but
it was a mere shade, between Mr. Ewart and Mr. Denison,
at that time, however widely they may have separated since.
But knowing both these gentlemen at tile time, loan state that
their political principles at that time were very nearly, if not
completely identical. Then, Sir. it is in evidences that at the
commencement of that election the principal gentlemen of the
town did not interfere. The poor freemen had not the advice
or the power of consulting and talking with those with whom
they had been in the habit of consulting; they had no great
landmarks of political feelings to guide them • they had no per-
sonalprepossessions more than that Mr. Ewaremay be connected
with the town of Liverpool; but his family is not so by residence,
nor is Mr. Denison : they are both elually strangers to the town
of LiYerpool, and the Freemen being without any landmark,
without any polar star to guide them, under these difficult cir-
cumstances a system of corruption and bribery, probably un-
premeditated on all sides, commenced, and I am free to admit
that it spread to a most melancholy extent.

Sir, if punishment had followed immediately upon that offence,
few I think would have ventured to have denied the justice of
the punishment; few would have ventured tQ have said that the