The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THuRSDAY EVENING, OCToBER, 11, ISM

subject on which he wished to make a remark. Such
buildings ought to be situate near water, and near a
church—more particularly near a church ; because
it was most desirable for the landowner to see the
poorer classes clustered around him in the parish
church on a Sunday. (Loud cheers.) It was im-
possible, in such a wide parish as Chesham, to pro-
vide a sufficient number of churches, but it was
most desirable to make every possible effort in that
direction. (Cheers.) He wished to throw out a
suggestion which he hoped the committee would
take into consideration. Instead of dining by gas-
light, he thought it would be much better to dine
by sun-light under a tent, where they might be able
to meet all the exhibitors and cottagers who had
shown their garden produce. He should like to see
them sit down and dine in the same tent, and then
the landowners and tenants might hear a word or
two from them, instead of having all the talk to
themselves. (Cheers and laughter.) He thought
the change he had suggested would have a good
effect, and hoped that it would receive a favourable
consideration. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. W. LOWNDES then proposed " The Tenant
Farmers and prosperity to the Association," which
was responded to by Mr. F. MANN.
The toasts of Lord Malden, the Vice-President,
the Committee of Management, the successful com-
petitors, and several others followed, and were
briefly responded to.

going away, so I did not like to ask him. I hope
it is not true. lam sure it has not been his fault.
He says if they had only sent him before one
battalion of Bersaglicri it would never have happened,
because at the beginning there were very few ; but
he had nothing but some recruits of three mouths'
standing, who had hardly ever fired a shot before,
and they could do nothing."

Election Commission.

GREAT YARMOUTH.

GREAT YARMOUTH, OCt. 10.

The proceedings before this commission on Mon-
day were of no special interest, but yesterday and
to-day the importance of the evidence materially
increased. Mr. Watkin, M.P., after referring to
the election of 1857, deposed that it had been said
by Sir E. Lacon, according to the report in the
papers, that he had received £5OO from Mr. Mellor
for the goodwill of Yarmouth. There was not a
word of truth in that statement. After witness
was defeated in 1859 he never intended to come
forward again for Yarmouth. He was invited to
come forward in 1864, and a correspondence ensued
with Messrs. Livingston and Clowes, which resulted
in a request that he should ask Mr. Brand; the then
Secretary to the Treasury, to recommend two good
candidates for Yarmouth. Mr. Livingston repre-
sented to him that the results of the registration in
the previous year showed a large majority in favour
of the Liberals, and that there was a certainty of
two Liberal candidates being returned, and, as he
believed, without the expenditure of a penny. Mr.
Brand suggested Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and some one
else whom witness could not remember. The nego-
tiations fell through, and ultimately witness was
requested to name two candidates. Eventually
Messrs. Brogden and Marshman were selected.
Witness informed Messrs. Brogden and Marshman
of the state of the register as given to him by Mr.
Livingston, and he told them there were a certain
number of persons who were open to corruption.
Witness told Mr. Marshman the cost of his elec-
tion in 1857 and 1859. The election of 1857 cost
him about £BOO ; that of 1859 from £l,OOO to
£1,200. He did not think the election of 1857 cost
Mr. M'Cullagh as much as it cost him. The amount
which witness paid from August, 1856, to the spring
of 1858 was about £1,300 ; this included payment
for shares which he took in a local paper, subscrip-
tions to local charities, registration, testimonials,
&c. A portion of the money was paid on Mr.
M'Cullagh's account, and witness thought it would
have been squared, but some difference arose in the
matter. After Mr. M'Cullagh was unseated he did
not complain of illegal payments having been made,
at any rate, not to witness. The ground of Mr.
M'Cullagh's refusal to reimburse witness was, that
he had spent a great deal of money between 1852
and 1857 in getting the register into a state which
led to their return, and he thought that should be
set off against a portion of what had been paid at
the election. Witness had read in the papers that
Mr. C. Steward disbursed between £1,500 and
£1,600 at the election of 1857 ; he could not account
for it, but he believed it to be an exaggeration.
Witness's total expenditure in 1859 was £1,159 2s.
4d. lie subscribed £2OO towards the expense of
the petition in the following year. He was asked
for a further contribution, and he put down about
£lOO ; other expenses amounted to about £lOO ;
that made £1,500 odd altogether. He did not
know how the money was disposed of which Mr.
Mainprice received, except from the evidence gene-
rally. Witness was not aware until afterwards that
illegal practices were resorted to in 1857. Ile did not
send for a man named Rundle from Grimsby in
1857. In 1859 Mr. W. T. Clarke told him that
Rundle was known to all the Gorleston voters, and
that he would be very useful; accordingly, at Mr.
Clarke's suggestion, Rundle was sent for.
Witness was not aware that Rundle had
been engaged in illegal practices at prior
elections. Ile considered him a very respectable
man. In conjunction with Mr. Young witness got
a man named Reynolds the situation of postmaster
at Gorleston. After the experience of 1859 witness
thought the Conservatives would not again resort
to illegal practices, and from the state of the regis-
ter as shown by Mr. Livingston he thought the elec-
tion ought to be carried by the Liberals. lle could
not account for Mr. Brogden's supplying himself
with so large a sum as £6,000. No doubt Mr. 13rog-
den had bitterly reproached himself since. Witness
should like to see a compromise in Yarmouth, as it
would extirpate the cause of corruption. With re-
spect to the petition arising out of the election of
1865, witness presumed that Mr. Brogden did not
claim the seat, as to have done so would have neces-
sitated a scrutiny. Witness became aware that
bribery was being practised in 1859 in this way.
Mr. Young and himself canvassed the borough,
and they had a decided majority of promises.
His own election at least was pronounced as
" safe as brandy." On the morning of the
election they headed the poll up to ten o'clock,
but at half-past ten the numbers began to go
against them, and Mr. Shelley showed him the
names of several men who had promised the
Liberals, but had then voted against them. Mn.
Livingston told witness and Mr. Young that they
omoney, but they said
that uld
they
already provided more money than
which was neither admitted nor
conlyhla win
was by en
was necessary,
denied, and they declined to spend any more. The
result was that they lost the election. Witness's
experience of Yarmouth was that the great bulk of
the constitu ency were honest and good men, although
many were made bad by temptations thrown in their
was applied as hard as it could be. In w,,asycreawnd, local influences. He believed that the
Yar-
mouth it was a great evil and misfortune that the
influence of the brewery of Sir E. Lacon should
exist at all. If the Commissioners looked at the
register they would observe that there was a larger
number of persons who sold drink in Yarmouth than
in almost any borough with 15,000 electors. Men
liked power, and this was purchased in Yarmouth
by the beer-selling influence. He thought that undue
use was made of Sir E. Lacon's brewery influence.
He did not say that it was done with Sir E. Lacon's
knowledge—Sir Edward was too good-natured for
that—but by his subordinates.

Sir H. J. Stracey said he was a candidate for Yar-
mouth in-1859. He had been unsuccessful in East
Norfolk, and being anxious for a seat in Parliament
he came to Yarmouth. He believed he told Sir E.
Lacon that he would stand with him and bear half
the expense. He announced himself as a candidate
about a month before the election. The canvass
lasted three weeks. He did not know exactly what
the election cost him. On inquiring of his bankers
the state of his account he found that it required
rectifying, as he had to settle for the county elec-
tion in 1858, the Yarmouth election in 1859, and
the petition which followed it in 1860. He made a
point of not inquiring what the election of 1859
cost him. He knew the character which Yar-
mouth bore. The borough was partly venal, al-
though the heads of parties were enlightened and
respectable men. He understood that one-fourth
of the constituency was venal. If he were asked
what his conviction was about the election of 1859
he should say that there was corruption going on,
but that he knew nothing about it. He had not a
single document as to his expenditure in Yarmouth.
Witness's agent, Mr. Reynolds, had carte blanche
at his bankers for the election expenses. He never
gave any instructions to Mr. Reynolds as to the ex-
penditure of money.

Mr. Fitzgerald—lt appears to me, Sir Henry, that
you are just the man for Yarmouth. (Laughter.)
Witness, in answer to further questions, said he
knew nothing about Mr. Nightingale having ad-
vanced money on behalf of Sir E. Lacon. Mr.
Nightingale never made a claim upon witness. In
1865 witness intimated that he did not intend to
stand again for Yarmouth, and he recommended
Mr. Goodson to the electors. When witness first
came to Yarmouth he thought there would be no
opposition as Sir E. Lacon had great local influence,
and witness also was a well-known county man.
Witness did riot represent to Mr. Goodson that Yar-
mouth was a very venal place. Witness had heard of
Mr. Cooper, the Conservative " illegal agent," but
he did not know him even by sight, nor did he know
in 1859 that Mr. Cooper had the spending
illegal of money
in an
way. Witness's impression was that

three-fourths of the boroughs of the United King-
dom were as venal as Yarmouth, perhaps not equally
so. If Sir E. Lacon was of opinion that Yarmouth
could be won without money, witness did not agree
with him. Witness did not consider it a fair infe-
rence that because Mr. Nightingale advanced £l,OOO
on behalf of Sir E. Lacon, therefore Mr. Reynolds
advanced a similar sum on his behalf. He did not
agree with Mr. Watkin as to the majority of the
voters in Yarmouth being Liberal in 1859 ; he
thought it was just the contrary. Witness was
rather disappointed at Sir E. Lacon's want of in-
fluence. He retired from Yarmouth not because of
its venality, but because he had other views.
Mr. Watkin, M.P., before leaving the room, said
he thought the constituency was made worse in
1859 than in 1857, and in 1865 worse still. He re-
quested his leading friends in 1859 to keep clear of
all the difficulties which had distressed him so much
in 1857. In 1860 he heard about Sir E. Lacon's de-
sire for a compromise through Mr. Rose, of the
Carlton ; he supposed it arose from a desire to
cover those things which persons were afterwards
ashamed of.

Mr. Fitzgerald—Sir E. Lacon says he knew
nothing about bribery. (Laughter.)
Mr. Watkin said of the money which he pro-
vided in 1857 and 1859 nothing was paid by
checks—all in notes and sovereigns. The story about
Mr. Mainprice finding a large sum of money in his
pockets was quite new to witness ; he first heard of
it through reading it in the Times.
Mr. W. C. Reynolds said he did not draw upon
Sir H. Stracey's bankers in 1859: he knew, how-
ever, that money was obtained from them.
He now heard for the first time that he had
carte blanche to draw upon Sir Henry. Witness
learnt from Mr. Hill, manager of the bank of Messrs.
Harveys and Hudsons, Sir H. Stracey's bankers,
that money was to be sent in a particular way. On
the Saturday before the election he received a parcel
from Mr. Hill, of Norwich. It contained £l,OOO,
and he gave it to Mr. Green, the leading Conser-
vative " illegal agent." Witness acted on behalf
of Sir H. Stracey, in order to see fair play between
him and Sir Edmund Lacon. One of the parcels
of money came, but not through witness. He learnt
about it from Mr. Green. He should say the total
spent was about £1,500.
Mr. E. R. ALDRED, the election auditor in 1859,
deposed that the expenses returned were, on the
part of Sir E. Lacon and Sir H. Stracy, £BO9 ; and
on the part of Mr. Watkin and Mr. Young, £603.
There were some miscellaneous expenses, amounting
to £2O, but witness could not remember to which
side these expenses referred. At their unopposed
election in August, 1857, the joint expenses of Mr.
Mellor and Mr. Young were returned at £375.
Mr. A. W. YOUNG, late M.P. for Helston, said
he formerly represented what is now the colony of
Victoria in the Legislative Council of New South
Wales. Witness returned to England in 1851, and
was returned for Yarmouth with Mr. Mellor in
August, 1857. Mr. M'Cullagh was a club acquaint-
ance. A gentleman named Humphreys, now coro-
ner for Middlesex, first suggested that he should
come to Yarmouth. Mr. M'Cullagh, through Mr.
Humphreys, stood his friend. It was generally
understood among the Liberal party that he was
ready and desirous to go into Parliament. There
was no pecuniary arrangement between witness and
Mr. M'Cullagh. Witness had heard long ago that
he was said to have paid £5OO to Mr. M'Cullagh
for his good will, but it was a mere idle rumour.
When witness and Mr. Mellor first came to Yar-
mouth in August, 1857, there was every appear-
ance of a probable contest, but at the last moment
Sir E. Lacon announced his intention to retire.
Witness came down to Yarmouth with Mr.
Watkin in 1859 to canvass. His election agent
was Mr. Clowes, but Mr. Chamberlin was his pro-
fessional friend. He gave Mr. Chamberlin £25.
His whole election expenses in 1859 were between
£l,lOO and £1,200. A good deal of this sum was
paid during the election. He brought down with
him £5OO, and gave checks for £320. Afterwards
he paid Mr. Clowes £3OO, Mr. Chamberlin, £25,
&c. He subscribed £l5O to the subsequent petition,
and a further sum afterwards. He knew that the
£5OO was intended for Mr. Mainprice. He knew
nothing about the great-coat-pocket story. Mr.
Mainprice was known to be managing the election.
Witness remembered a check for £BO being de-
stroyed on the morning of the polling-day. He
never heard of Mr. C. Steward during the election
of 1859. Mr. M'Cullagh never made any repre-
sentation to him as to his expenditure in Yarmouth
prior to the election of 1857. Witness knew no-
thing as to differences as to money between Mr.
M'Cullagh and Mr. Watkin. Witness never formed
any opinion from his canvass in 1857 as to the
electoral purity or impurity of the borough. He
never heard at the election of 1859 that bribery
would be necessary on the Liberal side. On the
polling day he heard that the Conservatives had
bought away Liberal votes, and he also came to the
conclusion that the Liberals themselves had been
guilty of corrupt practices.