The Sun.
London, England, 1859-11-15 00:00:00

W4KEFIELD ELECTION COMMISSION

WAKEFIELD, Nov. 14.

At the sitting of the commissioners this morning,
Dan Robinson, thq satellite of the " Man in the
moon," was called—l was brought to Wakefield
at the last election by Whitehead, and was employed
by him to bribe various electors. I offered money
to many electors, but I only actually bribed three.
To Thomas Head, the baker, I gave £6O on the day
before the election. To Gosney, a confectioner, I
gave £25 not to vote at all. Ife would not vote
for such a small sum as that, but after a little dis-
cussion he agreed to stand neutral for that. I
bargained with Jesse Pickard, the shoemaker, for
his vote. At first he would not vote at all, but
after a while I got him to promise for Charlesworth,
and I said, " I shall not give you any money, and
then nobody can say that you have been bribed."
At the same time I stepped forward to his shop
window and dropped 50 sovereigns into a lady's
boot which was lying there, and walked off. Of
course he saw what I was doing, but he didn't
speak a word. There was no possibility of anybody
picking up the boot and not finding out what was
in it. [Pickard swore that he had not taken money
for his vote.] I also offered money to the Halli-
days and to a baby linen warehousekeeper named
Moxon, who said he would not sell his vote for any
sum of money, but that if Mr. Charlesworth would
give him a situation for life, which he had it in his
power to do, he would vote for him.
Mr. Matthews, one of the voters whom the " Man
in the Moon " stated that he had bribed with £lO
or £l5, made his appearance in the witness-box,
and denied the imputation with much show of in-
dignation. The money was said to have been left
on Matthews's counter, but both Matthews and his
son, who was also called, swore positively that they
had resisted the temptations of the unknown, and
that the story of the money deposited on the counter
was a pure invention.
Mr. Thomas Serle, barrister, was next called. He
said,—l was professionally engaged at the last elec-
tion, ostensibly to assist Mr. Westmoreland as legal
adviser, but in reality to write articles for the papers,
election placards, and to make speeches on behalf of
the party. I had nothing to do with canvassing, or,
in fact, with any of the business part of the matter.
Early in the election I had reason to believe that the
Liberals had begun to bribe, and by my advice Mr.
Westmoreland employed a number of men to watch
Wainwright's offices. It was sonic time in the week
before the election that I heard from common rumour
in the town that Brear was bribing on our side.
Mr. Westmoreland and I had some conversation on
the subject, and we agreed that if the report were
true it was a suicidal course, for our plan was to keep
pure, and get the seat on petition. I was aware
that Whitehead was in the town, for I knew him
before, but I was not aware of his business. I
might have had some suspicion of it, but I pur-
posely avoided asking any questions. I thought it
better, if he were doing anything wrong, to know
nothing. about it. After I heard that Brear was
bribing, I avoided him as much as possible; I made
no attempt to stop the bribery. In fact, I fought
shy of the whole affair after these rumours got
abroad. When I received my retainer it was un-
derstood that the contest was to be fought on pure
principles by the Conservatives, for it is was well
known that the Liberals had committed themselves
months before, and my plan was to get together
all the evidence against them I could, in order to
unseat Mr. Leatham and seat Mr. Charlesworth. I
believe Mr. Charlesworth entered into the contest
with a firm intention not to resort 'ito illegal prac-
tices, and if he changed his mind at all during the
election—which I do not admit—it would he be-
cause he saw a determination on the part of the
Liberals to filch the seat from him by unfair means.
I canvassed with Mr. Charlesworth, and during that
canvass I never heard a single improper offer made
to any voter to induce him to vote for us. The pe-
tition was not advised by me—it was a sponta-
neous ebullition of feeling after the election was
lost—but it was through me that the information
was conveyed to Messrs. Baxter, Rose, and Nor-
ton, in London, on which the petition was drawn
out. Of course, I was aware why the petition did
not pray for the seat. It was notorious that there
had been bribery on both sides, and my idea was
that Mr. Leatham would not attempt for a moment
to defend his seat, and that then, the seat being
vaunt, and both sides finding out how expensive
the old 'system was, would resort to a purer mode
of conducting the election. I was engaged on the
election of 1857, but I am not aware that any im-
proper practices were resorted to then, nor do I
believe that there were any. I went up with Mr.
cse,riess-,r, .7;tl-1 the view of doing something to
stop this commission. We saw noh-mro Smythe and
Mr. Beecroft about it. It was a spontaneous act of
our own—the party did not send us. We paid our
own expensss.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—Now, Mr. Serle, about
your going away. Why did you leave the town
when the Commissioners came here? Was it be-
cause you knew who these strangers were and didn't
wish to be asked who they were ?
Mr. Serle—No; my reasans were twofold. First,
the state of my health ; and next, that I was un-
willing to be called on to advise how the Conserva-
tive case should be conducted.
Mr. E. A. Leatham, M.P., was recalled, and in
answer to Mr. Slade, said he knew before the elec-
tion that bribery was going on on the Liberal side ;
from the hints dropped occasionally by Gilbert at
Wainwright's office, he could not fail to be aware
of it. He had, however, no knowledge of any indi-
vidual case of bribery.
Wm. Barret, gardener, said—l was employed at
the last election to bribe Ritchie. 1 gave him £4O
to vote for Charlesworth. I also offered Lynas, a
grocer, £4O, but he would not have it. I got £65
from Mr. Serle, £25 of which I have got still. I
have offered it to various members of the committee,
but none of them would have anything to do with it.
John Dixon, a commercial clerk, was offered an
unlimited amount by the " Man in the Moon" if he
would vote for Charlesworth, but refused. Was also
offered five guineas a day for working as a Conser-
vative committee clerk if he would vote for them.
Voted for Leatham without any inducement. When
canvassed by Mr. Charicsworth he told him he did
not want any immediate pecuniary advantage, but
a situation which would provide for him for the fu-
ture. Mr. Charlesworth turned it off, and said he
could not do it.
T. H. Brownbill voted for Leatham at the last
election, though he had at former elections alwas
voted for the Blues. Did not receive an 3 bribe for
turning. His reason was that some time previous
he had written to Mr. Chark-swcrth for a loan of
£5O, but received no answer.
G. Allet, publican, promised both sides, but voted
for neither. He owed W. Bayidon, a Conservative

agent, £27 145., and he got that wiped off, with a
present of £5 to his wire to vote for Charlesworth.
After that Woodhead, a Liberal agent, gave him
£l5 to stand neutral.
Mary Fieldhbnse said—My husband had £2O for
voting for Leatham. Archie Crowther offered us
£5O to vote for Charlesworth, but we would have
nothing to do with him.
J. Perkin, landlord oftheManorHouse Inn, voted
for Charlesworth without a bribe. Just before
the election was offered £lOO for two Cheshire hams
if he would vote for Leatham. The offer was made
by a stranger whom he had since seen talking with
Winter (one of the Liberal bribery agents). He
refused the offer then, and a day or two afterwards
the same man offered £lOO for the use of a small
piece of grass land until Christmas, if he would vote
" Yellow." The same man attempted to drug. him on
the polling morning, by putting something into a
glass of sherry, to which he had treated him, while
his back was turned. Understood that this man
lived at Kirby, near Hemsworth.

John Barton was the medium of bribing James
Winter to vote for Leatham. Sharpley placed £4O
in his hands, which was to be -Winter's if he voted
right. The man did vote right, and he put the money
under a flight of steps in his back yard, whence it
was fetched away by Arundel, Winter's son-in-law.
Arundel told witness that Shand, the spirit mer-
chant, had offered his father-in-law £lOO worth of
spirits if ae would vote for Charlesworth. Had also
£2O deposited with him for another voter; but as
the polling-day came on the voter said that prices
had risen, and he would not take £4O then, The
money was returned to Gilbert.
Mr. Stephen Seal, stone merchant, was associated
with Mr. Ash in the management of the
non-electors'
department on behalf of Mr. Leatham, took a
-very active part generally in the election'. Canvassed
along with Mr. Ash, but hail no knowledo•eofany
improper offers beiog made to any voters. One
David Stocks had stated to the Commissioners that
he (Seal) was present when an offer of £4O was
made to David Turner, but the statement was a
fabrication. Neither he nor Mr. Ash had any au-
thority to offer money to voters.
James Saville, grocer, reczived £3O from Gilbert
to hand over to Caldwell if he voted for Leatham,
as he had bargained with Sharpley to do. Caldwell
voted right, and got the money.
Maria Ripon was housekeeper to Joseph Beau-
mont, who had died since the election. On the
day of polling Brear came into the house and
gave Beaumont a packet of money, and then
took him off to vote. On his return, Beaumont
said, " I believe they have given rue £5O for my
vote," but on breaking open the parcel it was only
found to contain 19 sovereigns. Beaumont had also
an offer of £4O from Sharpley to vote for Leatham.
John Woodhead paid G. Abbot's wife £l5 for her
husband's neutrality; and also £5O to G. Seller's
wife for her husband's vote for Leatham. In both
cases got the money from Gilbert.
Mrs. Sarah Wheater was offered £lO by George
11Urriot to persuade her husband to vote for Lea-