The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-05 00:00:00

GLOUCESTER ELECTION COMMISSION

EIGHTH DAY.

GLOUCESTER, TUESDAY.

The inquiry was again proceeded with at 10
o'clock this morning. The first witness examined
was _ _ _

Mr. Charles John Monk, who stated that he was
one of the candidates at the late election for Glou-
cester. Was at the Travellers' Club on the after-
noon of the 27th of March, when a friend came and
said that a deputation from Gloucester was at the
Reform Club, and wished to-see him. Went to the
Reform Club to meet them, and saw Mr. Price,
who introduced him to the deputation, which in-
cluded Mr. Innell and Mr. J. Wilton. Mr. Wil-
ton, who was the spokesman, said they had been
requested to come to London for a second Liberal
candidate to contest the city in conjunction
with Mr. Price •, that they had already asked Mr.
Price's advice, but that he had declined to inter-
fere. Mr. Wilton also said that they had wished to
induce Mr. Bernal Osborne to become a candidate,
because he was a well known man, who had been
a long time in Parliament, and would be very popu-
lar in Gloucester ; but that he had refused to leave
Dover. Mr. Wilton then said that witness was the
next person to whom they had applied ; that his
name had been favourably received by the mem-
bers of the Reform Club ; that he felt sure a
second Liberal might be returned in conjunction
with Mr. Price ; and that if Sir R. Carden was a
candidate again there could not be the least doubt
of the success of both Liberals, because Sir Robert
was exceedingly unpopular in Glocester, and even
his own party were heartily tired of him. He also
stated that it was an indispensable condition that
any Liberhl candidate should support the ballot.
Re then assured witness that the total probable
expenses of the election for both the Liberal candi-
dates would be under £1,200. He subsequently
added that even in the case of a protracted con-
test he would guarantee the expenses to be under
£1,500. He told witness that it was a custom at
Glocester for the old candidate to pay one-third,
and the new candidate two-thirds of the expenses ;
that Mr. Price had done so himself, and that if
witness became a candidate he would be expected
to do the same. That was the whole of the con-
versation • as far as Wilton was concerned. Witness
had observed that he was in possession of the field
at Cricklade ; that he had contested that borough
at the previous general election, and was prepared
to contest it again in the event of a dissolution ; that
he had attended to the registration there at some
expense to himself ; that if an election did not
take place before a Reform Bill passed, he was cer-
tain of a seat there ; but that, even if a dissolution
occurred before a Reform Bill passed, he had
every chance of success. He might add that the
candidate who succeeded him at Cricklade was
within two votes of being at the head of the poll.
Told the deputation he must consult his friends be-
fore giving his decision, and promised to meet them
at their hotel at 9 the same evening. Afterwards
saw them at the Reform Club. Previous to that,
however, had an interview with Mr. Moffatt, to
whom he told what the deputation had said, and
asked his advice as well as his opinion whether the
prospect of success at Glocester would justify him
in leaving Cricklade. Mr. Moffatt had arranged all
his expenses at Cricklade in 1857. Mr. Moffatt ob-
jected to his paying is s o-thirds of the expenses at
Glocestor, and said there ought to be an equal divi-
sion, witness undertaking, as the new candidate, to
go to the wall in case only one Liberal could be re-
turned. Mr. Moffatt had an engagement in the
count'. ". next day, and so he met the deputation
again at the Reform Club the same night. Mr.
Price was also there, but witness himself was not
present. Mr. Moffatt afterwards told him that he
had fought hard for an equal division of the ex-
rut*, but that, on an explanation of what Mr.
Price had done himself on a former occasion, he
thought witness ought to yield. He then told
witness that there would be only one exception to
that principle; that each candidate should pay his
own agent and for his own committee room, if he
had any ; and that all expenses incurred
under the authority of the Reform Club should be
divided in the proportion of two-thirds to witness.
and one-third to Mr. Price. That statement was
repeated before Mr. Innell and Mr. Wilton, and
they assented to its correctness. Next morning he
consented to stand, and addressed the Liberal elec-
tors of Gloucester on the following Thursday. That
same night the division took place in which the
Government were defeated, and the dissolution was
announced on the Monday after. He issued his
written address on the next Tuesday, commenced
his canvass on Wednesday, and was joined by Mr.
Price on the Friday.
By Mr. Commissioner Vaughan—When the sum
of £1,200 or £1,500 was named he had not the
slightest suspicion of that amount being required

for bribery. If he had had the least suspicion -
that bribery would take place he would neve r
have come to Gloucester. -He held a high official
position in that diocess, and also bore a nfLme
which he would never have suffered to be mixed
up with dishonourable practices in that city.
Never heard anything said by Mr. Innell or Mr.
Wilton about the expense of messengers. None of the
items were gone into. As Mr. Moffatt was leaving
the club on the Sunday evening he advised witness
if a dissolution took place to go down to Glocester
and canvass, and to stick to the place till the elec-
tion came off, telling him at the same time that he
need not trouble himself about the expenses con-
nected with the election ; that if any money was
wanted for preliminary expenses he would provide
it himself, or that if he went to Mr. Ralli he sup-
posed that gentleman would not object to make an
advance for that purpose. Witness replied he was
;lire Mr. Ralli would not object. The conversation
' made liitle impression on witness, and he was so
littie ai
nw,try that
e fp.1311 would be required for
pre m
expenses that he never mentioned the
matter to °Mr. Ran Indeed,i. Mr • Ralli, being a
person he would have spoken
foreigner, was the "f•
to about elections ; becausd he knew nothing of
how they w 6 re conducted. Mr. :Rain was well
aware that Mr. Moffatt had advised him iii regard
to Cricklade as well as to Glocester. Told Mr.
Ralli next morning at breakfast that he was goitig I
to leave Cricklade, and that Mr. Moffatt had ad-
vised him to stand for Glocester. Left London and
remained at Glocester till the election was over
and he had been returned. Certainly had no com-
munication whatever with Mr. Ralli respecting the
election expenses. When he stood for Cricklade
Mr. Ralli was at Rome. No one while at Gloces-
ter made any application to witness for money for
the election. Did not think that singular. When
he contested Cricklade, which had almost as many
voters as Glocester, he was never asked for a shil-
ling till the claims were sent in a month after the
election. He had no idea that that rule would be
departed from at Glocester. Did not know till
months afterwards that money had been sent down
to the Glocester Bank by Mr. Ralli. Was asto-
nished when he heard of it ; because ho had left
the whole management in Mr. Moffatt's hands.
and was surprised that anyone else had interfered.
Returned to town to attend the election of the
Speaker, when Mr. Moffatt told him he had
had applications for money from Glocester.
Mr. Moffatt had not told him before that
he had received money from Mr. Ralli ; and
Mr. Ralli himself never told witness that he had
advanced money. Had a letter from Mr. Jones (his
agent) on the sth May, relative to the expenses.
The firsl he heard of money being required was
from Mr. Innell, who said that Mr. Wilton was
engaged with Mr. Ellis and Mr. Jones in getting
in the election bills. Tnis was about the middle of
May. As soon as the month was over for sending in
the claims he requested Mr. Jones to forward all
the bills to Mr. Moffatt, to whom he had left the
entire settlement of the expenses. Mr. Jones said
he had not been able to do so at that time, as the
bills were not ready. Never went to any locester
bank himself, nor sent any one else there for money
during the whole time he was down there on the
election business. On the 2d June wrote to Mr.
Ralli to pay Mr. Moffatt £5OO on his account, if
that gentleman should apply for it. Did this
partly because certain election claims had been
made upon Mr. Moffatt, and partly to put into his
hands a sufficient sum to pay the whole expenses
of the election. At that time had no knowledge of
any money having been advanced by Mr. Ralli.
Was not clear when he first received that informa-
tion ; but it was soon after he came up to town.
On the 2d of June Mr. Moffatt told him he had
advanced a sum to Mr. Price. Was not sure whe•
ther he named the amount. Thought Mr. Moffatt
had mentioned the circumstance to him before.
His belief and suspicion were that Mr. Moffatt had
gone to Mr. Ralli for the money, as he had said he
probably would do before the election. Assumed
that Mr. Ralli had advanced the money, and took
it so much as a matter of course that he never asked
Mr. Ralli the question. Witness paid £464 to Mr.
' Jones, aid £l6 7s. 10d. more for auditor's fees.
These were all the sums he had paid in respect to
the election. When the petition was presented to
' the House of Commons Mr. Moffatt said he would
rather not receive the further claims from Mr.
Jones, as he expected to be examined. That was in
• July. When witness was unseated on petition lie
• certainly declared to Mr. Ralli that there had been
a profuse and shameful expenditure at Gloces-
ter. Lived at Glocester when his father was
bishop of the diocess ; but never took eny part
in politics. While on the canvass with Mr. Pric e
witness one day asked that gentleman what all the
persons in the committee-room were about, and
whether they were messengers. Mr. Price said he
did not know, and preposed that they should go
and inquire of Mr. Ellis. Saw Mr. Innell and Mr.
Wilton at Mr. Ellis's office, and questioned them
about the messengers. They stated that they knew
nothing about their engagement except that they
had been put on by Brewer Monk. Asked Mr.
Innell how many there were, and he said he did
not know, but thought there were more than were
necessary. Witness then declared that if a colour-
able number were employed, or anything practised
, that would endanger his seat, he would at once re
tire from the contest. Mr. Price made a similar
. declaration, and requested Mr. Ellis to write to the
Reform Club to cut down the number to 20. lin-
, derstood the number was then reduced. That was
all he knew of anything like lavish expenditure.
Recollected Mr. Wilton saying at that time that
their two candidates had not so many messengers
as Sir R. Carden alone. When he wrote on the
25th March to Mr. R. Wilton, to get him to be-
come his agent, witness declared that " he must set
L• his face steadily against everything like bribery,
and was not prepared to pay anything beyond the
legitimate expenses." Did this because he had
heard that Sir R. Carden's election in 1857 -;/as
entirely carried by bribery. That was when he
heard that Sir M. Berkeley would not stand again.
At the close of his examination before the commit-
tee of the House of Commons, witness was asked
" whether he had any notion where the money
came from ?" He replied that he "had no know-
ledge whatever." Thought the question an unfair
one. Meant by his answer that he " had" no know-
ledge "at the time." The word " had" had been
inserted for " have" in the printed evidence, by
some mistake. The analysis of his personal can•
vass was as follows :—Promises to Price and Monk,
split votes, 702 ; Price and Carden, 42 ; Monk and
Carden, 15 ; plumpers, Price, 18 ; Monk, 2 ;
Carden, 462. The total number of voters pledged
was 1,241 ; the number who refused or could not
vote was 38, and the unpledged 216, making
together 1,495 voters. The deaths and double
entries were 226, and the total number on the re-
gister was 1,721. Did not think that a sum like
£l,OOO could be legitimately expended in a contest
on behalf of the two Liberal members. His total
expenses at Cricklade, an agricultural constituency,
were £964. Knew there were solicitors to employ,
the expenses attending the canvass and conveyance
of the out-voters were heavy, and the hustings
charges very high. Considered that no further
claims could be brought against him. Recognised no
claim for £4O on the part of Mr. Lane. If Mr. Bro.
therton had lent £2OO to Mr. J. Wilton, it was a
most unjustifiable proceeding, and he did not think
himself bound to refund that sum, or one of £95 to
Mr. Wilks. Was neither legally nor honourably
bound to make it up to any of them, and was not
disposed to do so. Supposed that he should have to
pay the £5OO advanced by Mr. Ralli. Knew
that Glocester did not bear a very high reputa-
tion, but always understood that bribery was
practised on the Conservative side. Had taken a
note of the conversation between Mr. Norris
ond Sir Robert Carden as repeated to him
by Mr. Price in the House of Commons, and there
was some little discrepancy between Mr. Price's
version and his own memoranda. As he under-
stood the matter, the cost of Sir R. Carden's elec-
tion in 1857 was £6OO ; the cost of the petition was
£4,000 ; Sir Robert's expenses in the contest of
1859 was £l,lOO, and he expected to be called on
for £4OO more, making £1,500, while he thought
it would cost him another £l,OOO to turn Price
and Monk out. Witness believed the latter item
was yesterday stated at £2,000 or £3,000. Whel
he came to Glocester he had no notion that bribery
would be resorted to, and when he put himself into
Mr. Moffatt's hands he felt satisfied there would be
nothing illegal. Never supposed that a person like
Thompson would be employed to take the money
down. Understood from Mr. Moffatt that lie
had not sent Thompson at all, but that he
had been sent by Sir W. Hayter. Never
heard from Mr. Moffatt that Thompson was
to have £lOO if he won, and £5O if he lost.
Was astonished to hear that that had been
in evidence. Witness then said that he had
canvassed a family who were yesterday repre-
sented_ as being susceptible of bribery at Longford.
him6a it
Saw tbe daughter, who, divining his object, told
was no use his coming there, saying " Father
having can't afford to vote without
something for •
it. Him as pays best has
the votes." (Laughter.) ,
Witness on hearit this
saidn immediately turned to
those near him and
e hoped he should not
have one vote from that family.
the members of which were or le4 in same
n family„
day as umber,
•
were pointed out to him on the election
were coming up to the poll, arm
in arm,
arm, and not
exceedingly sober. (A laugh.) Would hand in
his pass-books. His local bank was the Glocester-
shire Bank. He drew a check on his London
bankers, Messrs. Drummond and Co., for £464, and
another check soon after for the auditor's expenses.
Mr. Monk then withdrew.

The inquiry was then adjourned till this day.

WAKEFIELD ELECTION COMMISSION.

WAKEFIELD, TUESDAY.
The inquiry commenced to-day at the Court-
house, before Mr. Sergeant Pigott, Mr. Willes, and
Mr. Slade, the commit,sioners appointed by her
Majesty to inquire into the condition of the borough.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott said the commission was
appointed under the 15th and 16th Victoria, cap.
57. No doubt it was familiar to all persons con-
nected with that borough that a committee of the
House of Commons had signified in a resolution
that corrupt practices had existed at the last elec-
tion for the borough. By the Bth section of the
act power was given to the commissioners to sum-
mon any person they thought proper, and to call
upon them to produce papers and documents. If
the witnesses did this and told the whole truth it
remained with the commissioners to give them in-
demnification by certificate against the consequences
of bribery. There was no limit to the powers of
the commissioners in their endeavours to arrive at
the truth, and it was therefore his duty to warn
all who might be called before them that the con-
sequences of equivocation might be dangerous.
With those observations he would now proceed to
call before them such witnesses, as far as he was
aware, to speak to those things which were made
known by the investigation before a committee of
the House of Commons.

Mr. jams Whitham, town clerk, examined by
Mr. Sergeant Pigott, said—The number of voters
was 052. Of these 70 were double numbers, leaving
882. There were 809 voted last election, 406 for
Mr. Leatham and 403 for Mr. Charles worth. The
previous election, which took place on the 27th of
March, 1857, was an uncontested one. Mr. John
Charlesworth Dodson Charlesworth was then re-
turned. Mr. Leatham was in the field, but he
withdrew from the contest. The next election
before that was in July, 1852, when Mr. Leatham
and Mr, George Sandon were the candidates. Mr.
Sandon was returned. In 'July, 1847, there was a
contested•election. Mr. Bandon and Mr. W. Alex-
ander were the candidates. The number polled
was 650-392 voting for Bandon, and 258 for Alex=
ander. I myself took no part in the last election.
I simply voted.
Mr. Harrison (examined by Mr. Willes) said—l
was election auditor before the commission. Mr.
Bruce was Mr. Lea.thaufs agent, and Mr. Taylor
was agent for Mr. Charlesworth. I audited the
accounts within three months from the 2d of May.
I delivered to the town clerk the accounts which
were sent in to me. I have a statement of them at
my office.
Mr. Bruce (examined by Mr. Sergeant Pigott)
said—l am a barrister, and was agent for election
expenses on the side of Mr. Leatham at the last
election. I kept my account in a little memoran-
dum book ; but I have not the original copy. I
destroyed it. I burnt it because it had got dirty,
and made another copy. I sent a copy to Mr.
Leatham. That was just three months after the
election, when the petition was going on. I will
undertake to swear that the copy I now hand in is
a true one. I have been at the bar four years and
know the value of an original copy. Mr. Wain-
wright was agent for Mr. Leatham at the election.
I know of the expenditure of £4BO. I do not
actually know of any other, but I believe more
money was spent. I forget the amount, but have
heard that there was £450 beyond the £4BO spent.
I have heard a good deal about bribery. I heard
it said that there had been something like £4,000
spent on the oppositE side—the Conservative; and
I have heard it said that as much had been spent
on ours. I heard that said by different persons at
different times, but it was from no person having
authority, and I cannot remember any of their
names.

By Mr. Slade—l know a man named Thomas
Field Gilbert. .I have seen him in Wakefield before
the election. He was introduced to me under the
name of Field. He came before the election com-
menced and remained till it was over.

Mr. Morgan, deputy town-clerk, produced the
accounts of the election auditor, which he received
on the 14th of August.
John Tuting Sweeting said,—l am a publican. I
signed the petition against Mr. Leatham's return.
I signed it because I knew from Mr. Charlesworth's
canvass that he must have been returned if there
had not been bribery. Mr. Westmoreland said that
if he would sign the petition, Mr. Barff would hold
him free of all expenses.
Mr. Samuel Richard Green, the other petitioner,
was then called, but did not answer to his name.
Thomas Beaumont said,—l am a voter for the
borough and a tailor. In the early part of the year
a man named Denison came to me. I was then in
poor circumstances. He asked me if £lO or £l5
would be of any service to me. I looked astonished,
when he said, " You need not look alarmed ; you
can have it if you like." I afterwards met Deni-
son at the bottom of George-street. I then got
£lO to votc. for Leatham. I did not vote for him.
After the election Denison asked me for the £lO
back. I received nothing for voting on the other
side, nor for voting at previous elections.

By Mr. Willes--I have received nothing before
or since the election, on Mr. Charlesworth's side.

Mr. Slade—Do you know the meaning of the
word " sugar,—brass sugar 9"
Witness—Yes.
Mr. Slade—Did you ever hear of any person hav-
in 0. brass sugar for his vote ?

Witness--I heard of a man named John Jackson
getting £3O for his vote.
Henry Denison said he remembered going to
Thomas Beaumont's house in January last, When he
asked him to get him .a loan of XlO from Mr. Wain-
wright. The money was lent, and Beaumont signed
a promissory note for it. It was not lent with the
object of bribing, although he was asked to vote for
Mr. Leatham.

Thomas Beaumont, recalled, said—Denison did
pay my rate last January. He gave me a pound
then, I never asked him to pay it. He came to
my holse and said he had been to pay it with some
others thatday.

John Jackson—l keep the Prospect House. Mr.
Hinchliffe called on me in January last. He never
offered me any money. He called on my wife, and
offered to give her £lO or £l5 to get me to vote for
him. Hinchliffe afterwards gave my wife £3O. I
saw only a sovereign of the money lying on the
table, but I never saw any of the £29. The sove-
reign was given to Hinchliffe. My wife called to
him as he was going through the bar, and said,
" This man wants something." He told her to
give him a sovereign. She said she had £3O, but I
did not see it. I signed a note when the money
was paid. I never knew how the money was spent.
I voted for Mr. Charlesworth. He came back for
the money a fortnight after the election. He re-
ceived the money to vote for Mr. Charlesworth. He
never repaid it, but a person named Jacob Harrison
came for it. Mr. Charlesworth asked me for my
vote. I neither promised nor refused him, and said
that I had not made up my mind. I did not tell
Mr. Charlesworth that I had been offered £3O to
vote for Mr. Leatham.

By Mr. Willes—Some of the voters used to come
to my house, but it was not made an open house.
Sarah Jackson said—l am the wife of the last
witness. I remember Hinchliffe coming to my
house and giving me £3O. My husband was not
present. The money was given to me to persuade
my-husband to vote for Mr. Leatham. I gave 11
back. I myself took care of the £29, and after-
wards paid my debts with it. A man named Jacob
Harrison came twice to the house for the money
back. Hinchliffe also came for it. I asked him
who the money belonged to, and he said it was his.
I said, " How can it be yours, when you had to go
three times to the committee-room for it ?" I did
not persuade my husband to vote for Mr. Charles-
worth, but for Mr. Leatham.

By Mr. Willes—lt was on the Monday before
the election that Hinchliffe brought the £3O.
Edward Hinchliffe (examined by Mr. Sergeant.
Pigott) said—l am a plumber. I remember taking
£3O to Jackson before the election. Ido not know
the gentleman from whom I received the money.
He was a stranger to me. I had the money in my
possession a couple of hours before I gave it to
Jackson. I received the money from a gentleman
in Mr. Wainwright's office, in George-street. He
was called Field or Gilbert. I took the money out
of a small bag. I offered a 'Voter named Rogerson £2O.
I expected to get that £2O from the same source as I
received the other. I canvassed a person named Wig.
Bairstow, living in Westgate, and several others,
but did not offer them money. Nobody told me
to offer money. It was my own idea, and I
guessed where it might be got. I canvassed a
man named Wainwright, landlord of the White
Bear, a publichouse on the Bradford road, for Mr.
Leatham. I offered him £2O for his vote, which he
accepted. I got the money from Gilbert, at Mr.
Wainwright's office, and gave it to Wainwright,
who, after all, voted for Cl' arleswort h. I got t la!
money back from him after the election, and applicd
it to my own purposes. These were the only pc; sons
whom I bribed, or offered to bribe, in the course of
the election. £2O was about the market price of a
vote, though I have he.ird of as much as £lOO being
offered. I always did business myself at the lower
amount.

Mrs. Beaumont, wife of a former witness, was
called and denied thc,t she had ever told Denison
that the Conservatives had offered her husband
money for his vote.

Mr. Beverley, an outfitter, was also examined on
this part of the case. He had canvassed Beaumont
before the election, and had got him to promise to
vote for Leatham. A day or two before the polling,
having heard from Denison that the Blues had
bought Beaumont, he called on him and found his
wife in. She took him into a side-room to " tell
him all about it." " Our principles are Yellow,

you see," she said, " but you Yellows are such a
scrubby lot with your money. The Blues have been
here and counted down 36 sovereigns on that table
for my husband's vote. My husband said he had
promised Leatham,and it would go against his cor-
science to break his word. I told him to put his
conscience in one pocket and the money in the other,
and see which was best." (Laughter.) Witness
could not find out from Mr. Beaumont who it was
that had offered the money, but suspected it was
Joe Brear.

Mr. Alfred Ashe was next examined as to the
proceedings of the non-electors' committee, and the
expenses incurred by it ; but there was nothing in
his evidence of any importance, He was under
examination when our parcel was despatched.
The notorious Godfrey Noble, whose revelations
before the Election Committee were the main cause
of Mr, Leatham's unseating, was mobbed on his
way through the town to the Court-house, and but
for the interference of the police would have been
very severely handled. The Commissioners, on
being informed of this, ordered steps to be taken
for the discovery and apprehension of the ring-
leaders, and expressed the intention of usingtheir
powers for the prevention of similar outrages for
the future.