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

for bribery. If he had had the least suspicion
that bribery would take place he would never
have come to Gloucester. He held a high official
position in that" diocess, and also bore a name
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 of, 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
sure Mr. Ralli would not object. The conversation
made so liitle impression on witness, and he was so
little aware that any sum would be required for
preliminary expenses that he never mentioned the
matter to Mr. Ralli. Indeed, Mr. Ralli, being a
foreigner, was the last person he would have spoken
to about elections ; because he knew nothing of
how they were conducted. Mr. Ralli was well
aware that Mr. Moffatt had advised him in regard
to Cricklade as well as to Glocester. Told Mr.
Ralli next morning at breakfast that he was going
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 hid been sent down
to the Glocester Bank by Mr. Ralli. Was asto-
nished when he heard of it; because he 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. Rail 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. This 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 Glocester
bank himself, nor sent any one else there for money
during the whole time be 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, and £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 ho
certainly declared to Mr. Ball 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 nny part
in politics. While on the canvass with Mr. Price
witness one day asked tbst gentleman -what all the
Apersons 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 contst. Mr. Price made a similar
declaration, and requested Mr. Ellis to write to the
Reform Club to cut down the number to 20. Un-
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
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 was
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 L'beral 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
and 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 he 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. When
he came to Glocester he had no notion that bribery
would be resorted to, and when he put himself into
\lr. 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 he
had not sent Thompson at all, but that he
had been sent by Sir W. Hay ter. 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 thensaid that he had
canvassed a family
who were staertdLaoyn refoprrde-.
sented as being susceptible of bribery 3
Saw the daughter, who, divining his object,g told
him it was no use his coming there, saying " Father
can't r
ffcrd to vote without having something for
it. Hm as pays best has the votes." (Laughter.)
Witness on hearing this immediately turned to
those near him and said he hoped he should not
have one vote from that family. The same famil3
the members of which were 12 or 14 in number,
were pointed out to him on the election day as they
were corning up to the poll, arm in 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.