The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-19 00:00:00

WiIirEFIELD ELECTION COMMISSION.

WAKEFIELD, OcT. la

At the sitting of the commissioners this morring,
Mr. W. H. Tomlinson was the first witness
sailed. He stated that he had been a volunteer
canvasser for Mr. Charlssworth, but he denied
having offered a bribe or used any threats to may
voter to induce him to vote for Charlesworth.
Like all the Conservative agents who have yet
appeared in the witness-box, he contradicted point
blank the evidence of the witnesses who have
implicated them in corrupt proceedings. He
acknowledged having endeavoured to persuade a
voter named Moxon to go away on the polling-day,
but when pressed as to whether he had offered the
money to go away, his memory suddenly failed
him, and he was unable to swear that he had
offered it, or that he had not. _

,
Mr, Sergeant Pigott—l trust that a gentleman
in your position will set a good example to your
side. I may say for myself that I never met with
anything so grievous as the exhibition which has
been made by some of the witnesses on the Conser-
vative side. They can remember everything im-
material about a transaction—the mere fringe of a
matter, as one may say—but the moment they are
asked whether they have paid money or offered
money they can recollect nothing distinctly, and
they won't swear to anything one way or the other.
It would be much better to speak the truth
Straight off; it makes very little difference to the
purposes of this inquiry now ; but we are all very
much pained at the attempt to keep the truth back
from us. People talk about the spread of education
doing good, but if education will not teach people
to speak the truth in a witness-box, I can't see what
use it is, except to make them wiser scamps.
Mr. Tomlinson—Well, I won't undertake to say
whether I did offer him any inducement or not. I
may have said something about its being made
worth his while to go away.
Samuel Gifford voted for Leatham, for which he
had £lO in money and £lO in goods. Alfred Ash
and Boston came to fetch him to vote,, but his wife
would not let him go until the money was put
down. Ash then took off his watch and offered to
leave it with Mrs. Gifford until the cash and goods
were put into the house. They were obliged to
comply with this condition, and then he voted.
Previous to this Joe Brear had given him. £3O to
vote for Charlesworth.

Eliza Gifford, daughter of the last witness, cor-
roborated her father's evidence with regard to the
offer of the watch.

Mrs. Gifford also gave the same evidence.
Mr. A. Ash was recalled, and gave a positive
denial to the story of the watch.
George Craddock was next called, and contra-
dicted flatly the evidence of Bairstow, who, on a
former day, had sworn that the witness offered
him £5O to vote for Charlesworth, and that he had
been discharged from his situation after voting for
Leatham. He characterised the story of the man
and his wife as a" pack of lies." Mr. Craddock
also denied the statement of a witness named Wain-
wright that he had endeavoured to induce him to
vote for Charlesworth by offers of increased custom.
The witness was subjected to a severe cross-exami-
nation, but he gave his evidence in such a stupid
and prevaricating manner that the Commissioners
threatened to commit him. Nothing, howeverflrwas
got out of him.

Mr. Thomas Field Gilbert was next called—He
. said, lam an election and Parliamentary agent. I
came down to this town at the last election to assist
Mr. Wainwright in conducting the election on be-
half of Mr. Leatham. Mr. Wyatt, the Parliamen-
tary agent, asked me to come down, telling me that
it would involve considerable hard work, and would
last several weeks. He did not intimate in any
way, either directly or indirectly, that it would be
necessary to resort to illegal practices ; and it was
only after I got to Wakefield that I learned that
bribery would be necessary. My terms were £3 3s.
a-day and all expenses. I saw Mr. Wainwright
immediately after my arrival. Nothing passed be-
tween me and Mr. Wainwright about bribery at
our first interview ; and it was not until the middle
of the month of April that it became apparent that
bribery was going on. I heard within a week of
my arrival that there was likely to be a good deal
of bribery on the other side. I think it was Sharp-
ley told me that. I did not speak to Mr. Wain-
wright about this until I came to have the real
condition of the borough before me. It was not
till a fortnight before the electiou that I had the
state of the borough before me. I had a list pre-
pared of the number of voters on both sides whom
no sort of influence could touch; then a list of
doubtful and unpledged persons who might be ex-
pected to be influenced in some way or other, either
legitimately or otherwise ; then a list of the
neutrals. These are the three classes into
which we electioneering agents generally divide
the canvassing books. Sharpley also handed
me in a long list of persons who were bribable
on both sides, and the number was so great
that I said, " Really, Sharpley, you must have
made a mistake ; Wakefield can't be so corrupt as
this." (Laughter.) I should think there were at
least 200 on the list. I don't know where that list
is—lost, I should think. I conversed with other
persons besides Sharpley on the subject ; and,
though some thought that Sharpley had formed an
extravagant estimate, yet the result was that I came
to the opinion that if the election was to be won it
must be by something more than the ordinary and
legal means. I then said to Mr. Wainwright—" 1
want to know whether I am to be absolute director
of this contest, and. whether I am to be at liberty
to use all the means which I may think necessary
for winning it." Wainwright took a day to make
up' his mind, and then he said the matter would be
left entirely in my hands. Of course I did not say
what means I should have to use, but he could per-
fectly understand what I meant. This was about
the 16th of April. I then said, "If my plan is to
be carried out, the first thing required wid be some
money." To which he replied he had no doubt some
ould come. When I got down to Wakefield' I
found to my great disgust that the town was in-
vaded by a host of what are called "watchers."
There were droves of them about the streets, and
no one could go out without being followed by a lot,
watching where he went and what he did. The
system was a very foolish one. I suppose it object
was partly to intimidate voters and partly to pre-
vent voters being carried away. It would have
been a good job if a lot of them had been carried
away. (Laughter.) I received about £2OO from
Mr. Wainwright to pay the expenses of these men
before the conversation of which I have spoken ;
and after that conversation I received £2,000
through Messrs. Overend and Gurney, in three
separate parcels. The parcels were laid on my
table by somebody, I can't say by whom—and I
opened them. There was generally a letter of
advice with each packet—here they are. (The
letters were handed in.) I made no entry of the
amounts I received, partly because I thought the
letters were sufficient evidence, and partly be-
cause, the transactions being of an illegal charac-
ter, I was not likely to be so minute in my
memoranda. Since the election I have had £375
from Mr. Wainwright. After I had received the
money I was put in communication with a number
of persons whose names I have put down on this
list. (The names were Sharpley, Armstrong,
Beverley, and Co., who have already made their
appearance before the Commissioners.) To all these
men I gave money to buy voters ;—there is a list,
so far as I can recollect, of the voters who were so
bought. I made a list at the time, though I don't
know where it is, of the amount paid to each ; but
the evidence which I have read 'in the papers on
this point is for the most part correct. The largest
sum I ever sent was £5O. I remember £96 being
sent, but that was for two votes. lam certain of
that. The price ran from £lO to £5O. Generally
it was on the other of £25. The general way in
which the bargains ran was this; Sharpley, or
some other agent, would get a voter to promise for
£l5 ; then, a day or two after, the voter would send
word that he could net vote for Mr. Leatham for
that sum,—the most he could do would be to
stand neutral, and for that he must have something
more. Later on he would ease his conscience by
offering to vote for Leatham for an additional sum;
and, after all, sometimes he would both keep what
we had given him and vote for the other side.
(Laughter.) The total amount spent in bribery on
Mr. Leatham's side, as far as I know, was between
£l,BOO and £1,900. That is all which passed
through my hands, and I have no knowledge of
any other sums. I believe, in fact, that no other
money but that was spent on Mr. Leatham's side in
bribery. During the election I received a letter
from some man, who has since gone to America,
offering to vote for Leatham for £l5O. (Laughter.)
I showed the letter to Mr. Wainwright, and he put
it in the fire at once. It was entirely Mr. Wain-
wright's doing that I went by the name of Field.
I had no wish at all to pass under an alias, nor to
conceal my presence in the town. Mr. Wainwright
said he did'nt want the other side to know that he
had a regular electioneering agent assisting him.
I saw and talked frequently with Mr. Leatham
during the election, but nothing passed between us
about-- bribery. I have no reason to believe that
he knew anything of what was going on, ex-
cept that as I was in receipt of a large sum of
money it was for the gentleman who was finding it
to judge what it was for. I generally kept the
money in my pocket, and took it' out as it was
wanted foreach person. I never kept it in a drawer,
and never put it in envelopes r.lirected to particular
voters. I never handed money to any voter perso-
nally. The whole sum wl.tich passed through my
hands was £2,792 12s. Pad., of *which from £l,BOO
to £1,900 was for bribery, and the rest general ex-
penseo, X adlltnCed mysiif.about XlBO from my own