The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-11 00:00:00

THE GLOUCESIER ELECTION COM-
MISSION.

GLOUCESTER, Our. 10.
The inquiry into corrupt practices at Gloucester
election was resumed this morning at ten o'clock,
by the examination of
Daniel Clark, a Liberal, who proved that he re-
ceived 51 from J. Moss, and gave 3/ of it to Mr.
Brown, a lay clerk at the cathedral, to vote for
Price and Monk. Spent the rest in treating.
Mr. Whithorn, wine merchant, was then again
examined as to the payments which he made to
-voters on the days of nomination and poll out of the
1,0001 which he had received to pay the expenses of
Sir R. Carden, the Conservative candidate. On
the day of nomination he gave to Mr. C. Hawkins
261; Mr. J. B. Hanman, 281; J. Ward, 1071; H.
Smart, 201; and on the day of tholl, to Stumper,
601; to 0. Clutterbuck, 150/ ; gunman,Pker 401;
James Mayney, 671 or 701; . 201; J.
Smart, 91. The 91 to Smart was asked for as a
loan, and witness took his acceptance for the money.
Paid himself to voters as follow :—Thomas Cole,
8/ (he voted for Carden and Monk) ; J. Perris, 10/
(he said if he did not get the money he should go
to the other side) ; Charles Perris, 51; G. Sterry,
Si; J. Mann, 10/ ; E. Bouldry, 91. All these were
for voling for Sir R. Carden. He paid in the com-
mittee-room on the day of the poll—E. Bourne, a
freeman, 10/ ; E R. Bourne, J. Bourne, and W.
Bourne, 81each ; Thomas Davis, a gaol officer, 101;
NV. T. Baylis and W. Bayley (brought by Mr.
Mayney, 61 each ; T. Butler, 51; H. Browning
(brought by Ward) 61. It was not true that he
(witness) slipped the money into Browning's pocket.
He voted for Price and Monk. Then Benjamin
Cook had 104 George Drinkwater Si, and James
Drinkwater Si. These were brought by. Haines.
Charles Batch, brought by Mayney, received 101;
Jesse Hooper, 81; Jas. H. Hyett, C. Hyett, and
I. Hyett, brought by Mayney, 101 each, and the
father bad 21 to go to Cardiff to fetch his son ;
Thos. Knight, H. B. Newgate, and 7. Newgate,
freemen, brought by Ward, 101 each. They pro-
mised to plump for Carden,. but they all split
their Totes. Paid Thos. Knight Si. John Lake
said he had been offered 101 on the other side, and
witness paid him that sum. Paid J. Lloyd 81;
J. Lodge, 41; M. Matthews. 51; H. Meadows, 41;
and Thos. Meadows, Si. Mr. Mills, of Stonehouse
station, said he would not vote for Carden unless
he got Si; witness thereupon paid him Si, but he
voted for Price and Monk. Paid H. I. Wilki
lastns,
51, A. Allen 101, and Thos. Dome 41; the
named had been employed to watch voters. Also
paid 91 12s to James Meredith, oft e Star public-
house, on the day of the poll. Altogetherhe could
make out payments to the amount of 8931 12s 4d.
He had tried to make out what had become of the
balance, but although he had devoted many hours
to it, he could not make out any individual item,
but he could safely say that the whole of the balance
of the 1,0001, received by him had been used for the
purposes of bribery. The mode of keeping his
electioneering accounts was to put a certain sum of
money into his pocket in the morning, and to " take
stock" the next morning, the deficiency would be
the day's expenditure. He then gave a list of pub-
lic-houses at which scores had been run up and bills
had been sent in, but they had not been paid. The
number of bills was just thirty—the amount run-
'ling from 9s to 60/. We gives. few of the heaviest :
—Mr. Groutage, Boothall Inn, 221 6s 3d ; Mr.
'
Tandy, Rising sun, 36/ Mr. W. Watkins, Cross
Keys, 1112 s sd; Mr. Turk, New Dm, 171 15s ; Mr.
Smart, Falcon, 641 16s 7d ; Mr. Gurney, Pilot,
141 16s 6d ; Mr. J. Brewer, Hope, 131 17s 2d.
Altogether these bills monntedto 2691.6 s 10d. The
witnessndded that a good many of them were legi-
timate claims, and might have gone into the audi-
tor's account. Much of it was expended in provid-
ding refreshments and dinners for members of the
committee, and it was a question with some of the
committee whether they should not pay for the
dinners out of their own pockets, but they did not.
He sent one man, named Knight, an inmate of one
of the hospitals, to a quiet place to be out of the
way of the other parties, whom they suspected of
an intention of carrying him off. There was a bill
for keeping this man and a person who was sent
with him to take care of him. Never gave any
order to open public-houses, but had given orders
for refreshment and dinners at particular public-
houses on particular occasions. Never gave
Smart any authority to open his house, but had
heard he was supplying drink to voters, and
told him he must stop it. As to the man Beckley,
he had never offered to get his son released from
the military service if he would vote for Carden.
Beckley said that Captain Robertson was interest-
ing himself to get his son off, and witness then said
if they had any interest on their side, we (the Con-
servatives) had as much on our side. Never
threatened Beckley to stop his son being released if
he did not go with the Conservatives.
Mr. I. Lovegrove, the agent to Sir R.Carden, was
again called. He said the list of messengers would
be ready for to-morrow. As to the publicans' ac-
counts, he had gone through them with Mr. Whit-
horn, and agreed that there were some legitimate
claims among them, and he should recommend Sir
R. Carden top ay them. The witness enumerated a
number of bills which had not been paid, amount-
ing to from 3301 to 3501. The witness was next
questioned as to his knowledge of where the first
half of the 500/ came from, as spoken to in his first
examination. He did not know where it came from
unless it was sent by Mr. Barnard. The first half
did not come either to his house or to his office.
Told Mr. Barnard it wee- his opinion that it would
be necessary that 1,000/ should be provided. Did
not tell him to make such a statement to Sir R.
Carden, because he could have made such statement
himself.' Mentioned this to Mr. Barnard as a friend
of Sir B. Carden, and because in 1857 he made an
advance of 100/ to Mr. Whithorn for moneys ex-
pended by him upon the canvass. Believed Mr.
Barnard made a second advance of 1001 after the
election to Mr. Whithorn for money expended by
him. The witness promised hereafter to give fur-
ther information in reference to the moneys received
and paid in 1857. Believed the 500/ had been re-
paid to Mr. Barnard by Sir R. Carden, and that
Sir Robert had expressed surprise that dr. Barnard
should have advanced any money on his account
without first consulting him. Told Sir Robert that
it was done no doubt in consequence of his sugges-
tion, and Sir Robert had expressed his astonish-
ment that Mr. Barnard had not called upon him
when in Gloucester. Mr. Barnard canvassed with
Sir R. Carden in 1857.
By Mr. Welford—l received 1,1751 from Sir R.
Carden, altogether, and there is 3301 to 350/ owing
beyond this and the 500/ received from Mr. Bar-
nard. I should have paid these amounts before
this, but thought it better not to paythem after the
commission had been issued, and before it sat. The
other party paid their bills about 24 hours before
the commissioners met. Altogether 2,7601 was the
cost of the election on the Conservative side. When
Sir R. Carden paid the accounts of the election of
1857 he made no remark. It was about 1,2001 or
1,300/.
Mr. F. B. Bauman, grocer, of Worcester, bribed
Decimus Best, jun., with 101 to vote for Sir R. Car-
den. He had been suffering from rheumatic fever,
and said he was behind in his rent, and that he
had received an offer from the other side, on which
witness said, he would be as liberal as they were.
Gave Decimus Best, sen., 4/; he voted for Carden
and Price. Gave Robert Acett 51; Mr. Took 51,
and Mr. Jeynes 51 to vote for Carden. Had spent
4/ in treating voters and others at different public-
Muses. Received 281 from Mr. Whithorn, and 51
from Stamper. Knew Henry Cox, and never
offered him a receipt for the money to vote for Mr.
garden. Offered to take him to Mr. Lovegrove to
see what could be done for him, as he was in bad
circumstances. Found, however, that Mr. Wilkes
had offered to take him through the Insolvent
Court, and he knew that then it was all tie. Had
heard that he had been accused of offering one
Wright to wipe off his account for his vote, but he
only
owed a few shillings, and that was not likely
to be sufficient to buy hisvote. Had told Henry
Townshend to get him off qu quarter's rent, if he
would Ward
our way, but he sawa heutco.uld get more. 1
Mr. Ward (examined before)
ties to whom he had paid moneyp ifuora tteti of par- I
Had paid John Bagley 51, but did not conls)ria'vdnetreiat.
was exactly for his vote. Had made no
with him beforehand, but finding he had 5/ in hand
after the election he gave it to him. Had expended
about 1901 altogether.
Mr. Taylor contradicted the statement of Mr.
Sharp, denying the offer of Beechwood for his vote.
Mrs. Gurney, wife of James Gurney, landlord of
the Pilot Inn, received 401 from Hamper and paid
it to four voters named (101 each) for their
votes for Sir R. Carden. Another voter, named
Tanner, said he should vote for the man who would
give him most money. Her husband had a claim
of 51 for coming from Milford Haven, but he had
not been paid.
Samuel Brett, cabmaster—Met G. H. Cooke in
the itreet. He said he was going to gaol, and asked
if he could get him out of his difficulties. He was
going to prison for 21 9s. Got the money from a
party who were drinking together at the White
Hart (Dovvdniss) who subscribed it together, and
he took it to Cooke and got him released. r.
Whithorn and Mr. Taynton were of the party at the
White Hart. Took Cooke's I U for the money.
Was told at the White Hart that he was to take a
memorandum for the money, and Cooke gave the
IOU.
Never asked the man for his vote, andedoidutnvoottekrsnoiwn
whom he voted for. Canvassed sa
me
1857, and gave a woman 3/—one of the Coopers of
Longford—at Lund's request. She sat on the stairs,

and Lund told him to give her the money, which
he did, and the woman then ran away.
Mr. W. Holtham, innkeeper (Spread Eagle) pro-
duced an account which he had againt the blue
committee, amounting to 8/ ss. Bd., and which had
not been paid. It was for refreshments to the
members of the committee.
Wm. Parker, carpenter, received 451 of Mr. Whit-
horn, and 4/ for paying a man's travelling expenses.
Gave Lovett, a voter, 51; Wm. Price, 4/ ; Fras.
Meek, 41. ; Wm. Bund, 21; H. Harris, 5/ ; Tyler,
2/ (to fetch a voter named Harris) ; Thos. Cox, 2/ ;
and to two other men he gave Si each. Did not
know their names. Met them in Sir R. W. Car-
den's committee-room. He was 20 days canvassing,
for which he deducted ss. a day. Spent 10s. a day
in canvassing ; sometimes more. Was never asked
for his own vote but always polled the same way.
By Mr. Welford—l am on my oath, and swear
that the 10/ for the two men's names unknown did
not go into my own pocket. Did not poll any dead

men.
Mr. Geo. W. C. Buchanan, of the Spa, Gloucester,
was an active supporter of Sir R. Carden—canvassed
with him about a week. He had canvassed with
Mr. Cooper and Mr. Thorpe in -previous elections,
and he had confined himself to that part of the
work, because he knew there were things done
which he would not wish to be mixed up with.
Called on a voter named Murrell, who told him he
was under obligations to. Mr. Wilkes, who had a
mortgage on his property and was also in arrears
with his rent, but Murrell said he was always
a Blue, and he asked witness's advice. He at once
advised him to vote for Price and Monk, and that
was all that passed between them. Never offered a
man named Davis £5, nor any other person. Had
been often stopped in the street by parties who said
they .had voted for Carden, and hoped he would
give them something to drink ; but he had made it
a rule never to give anything. He and his family
had voted for three generations for the Conservative
candidate. He knew nothinr,c, about bribery him-
self, but he knew it was stated that in Mr. Cooper's
time there were 130 venal votes, in Mr. Hope's
time 200, and he believed the number was now 400.
This corruption seemed a growing evil in the coun-
try. One illustration--I saw two men talking
together in the street very vehemently, and one
said, "I beant a-going to let 'em have my vote for
nothing. Look at the 24 lawyers having their £25
down and 5 guineas a day a piece, and I beant a-
going to let em have mine for nothing." Now he
took that as the tone of society generally. Every-
body, as it seemed to him, wanted to get the most
he could out of an election. He believed the in-
creased corruption was a good deal owing to the
system which prevailed at municipal elections.
Alderman Hughes had told him that his election
had cost him £4o—(This was denied by Mr.
Hughes, who was present in the court)—and Mr.
Eason had paid £25. There was scarcely a man
who would go up to vote without being paid at
the least his day's work. He believed that the
corruption had increased since the passing of the
Municipal Reform Act. He recollected before the
passing of the Reform Act that Captain Berkeley
((now Sir Maurice Berkeley) had stated that one
of his elections cost him £20,700, and Mr. Cooper's
election cost him £20,000. At that time the cost of
bringing voters to the poll from a distance was
heavy. If Mr. Price had stated that his election
once cost him 3001, he (witness) believed that some
one else must have paid the limey.
Mr. Brimmell, ropemaker, was called to prove
that he had bribed three voters, viz., H. French
with 41, and Thomas Harding and G. Lines, 2110 s.
each, to vote for Sir R. W. Carden, He paid this
out of his own pocket, and had sent no claim to any
one. If the Conservative party offered payment,
he should certainly not refuse it. He also agreed
to give one Walters 31, but he was kidnapped on
the night before the poll.
John Alloway, tailor, received Si from Mrs. B.
Monk for voting for Price and Monk.
James Cotes received the same sum front Mr.
Mallard. for the same purpose.
Mr. J. Davis received 4/ from Mallard to vote for
Price and Monk, but did not vote at all.
Peter Ed wards—My wife received 61 for my vote.
I never had the money. She is mistress and mas-
ter, too.
Az.. Evans, beotmaker, received 42/ from Jeffer-
son Bryan for treating and bribery, and detailed
how he expended it in the purchase of votes for
Price and Monk.
One or two other witnesses gave similar evidence,
but it was only a multiplication of evidence that
has already been pretty fully published.
It is expected that Sir R. W. Carden will be exa-
mined in a day or two, and that the whole of the
evidence as relating to the last election, will be ad-
duced by Thursday next.
The court adjourned at 4 o'clock until to-morrow

THE CRARTERHOUSE B.RE2.H.REN
AND THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.

The Revising Barrister for Finsbury gave his
judgment in this case on Saturday, in the Lords
Justices room, Lincoln's-inn. Several of the brethren
were present, and took a keen interest in the pro-
ceedings. The following is the judgment, which
governs the whole of the claims (amounting to
about 80) to be placed on the voting list.
The Revising Barrister said the 36th section of
the Reform Act provides that no one shall be put
upon the register who within twelve months pre-
vious to the last day of July shall have received pa-
rochial relief or other alms which by the law of Par-
liament disqualified him from voting. The old law
of parliament therefore seems on this point to be re-
tained. Now, prior to the Reform Act, it was well
settled that hospital pensioners and bedesmen might
be qualified to vote. If they, received parochial
relief or alms within a certain period they were
thereby temporarily disqualified. But the mere
fact that they subsisted on the revenues and enjoyed
the settled pensions, the defined prescribed allow-
ances of an endowed public charity, was no dis-
qualification. They were considered to have a per-
manent interest in the establishment, and it was
held that if any one of them was turned out, he
might have a mandamus to reinstate him. When
the Charterhouse case was presented by Mr. Banis-
ter in 1851 for registration, an objector contended
that the pensioners lived on charity. The objec-
tion was disposed of as follows :—" It is said that
Mr. Banister lives on charity, so likewise do the
fellows of a college. They live on charity, if by
charity is meant the bounty of their founders]; but
they are not on that account excluded from civil
rights, or deemed incapable of appreciating the
duties and exercising the privileges of citizens. By
the deed of foundation the eighty Brothers of Char-
terhouse are to be gentlemen by descent, merchants
ruined by the disasters of commerce, or soldiers
mutilated in the service of their country. From
the moment of their appointment they are inde-
pendent. They cannot be displaced at the caprice
of a governor." In the Burleigh Hospital case no
weight was attached to the circumstance that the
foundation was a charity. Mr. Justice Maule
observed, "the only question is whether these bedes-
men have an equitable estate." Now, how does
Mr. Justice Maule answer this question ? Simply
by saying, "I think they have an equitable estate,
as they are not liable to arbitrary amotion." The
expression of Mr. Justice Maule that the Burleigh
bedesmen were not liable to arbitrary amotion may
have suggested what was said as to the Charter-
house pensioners, that " they could not be displaced
at the caprice of a governor." The case respecting the
Windsor military knights, decided by the Court of
Common Pleas in .julylast, as reported by Mr. Scott, in
his fifth volume, p. 40, is in one respect very distin-
guishable from the'laresent. The Windsor knights
receive their appointment directly from the Crown.
Their apartments are within the verge of the Royal
palace. The, are constantly under the eye of the
Sovereign. They inhale the atmotsphere of the
court, and are subject to its influence; and if we
could suppose it possible, which we cannot, that
any one of these ancient knights should be dis-
placed or amoted, where would be the remedy ?
Would a mandamus be issued against the Crown ?
If, on the other hand, a pensioner of the Charter-
house is capriciously expelled, the courts of this
country are open to him. He is entitled to justice,
and will obtain redress either by mandamus or by
a proceeding in Chancery, or possibly by both.
His tenure is stable, his position secure. But al-
though the circumstances of the Windsor case are
peculiar and such as to make it stand by itself,
there was an expression of opinion by the Lord
Chief Justice in delivering the judgment which
will rule my decision in the present case. "We
~
are of opinion," said his lordship, that there is no
such estate or interest in these houses as can pro-
perlybe dereamheedrisaroi
folvwniehid-ssheirp, for ablthoughdthe
deanap allowp ea
appears
d
thet
hkanti gtlhl tes
dteofteoccupy
cstarntilocitneions on the houses,msseay e boun
yet to
re
authority to impose such
have power and
enjoy-
ment as to divest the occupation of the character of
ownership. The knights cannot let their houses
in the whole or in part, nor even receive inmates
or guests therein, except with the assent and sanc-
tion of the dean and canons." When the claim of
the Charterhouse pensioners was brought forward
on the former occasion, there was no means from
the evidence of supplying the test here suggested
by the Chief Justice, and so far as am aware the
test itself had not then been disclosed by judicial
decision. I now, however, apply it to the present
case, and find that there is enough to satisfy me
that the Charterhouse pensioners " cannot let their
houses in the whole or 3.13 part, nor even receive
inmates or guests therein, except with the assent
of their superiors." This being so, lam bound to
hold that the objection made against William