The Sun.
London, England, 1866-09-20 00:00:00

REIGATE.

The inquiry was resumed yesterday, when the exami-
nation of

Job Heath Apted, shoemaker, and paid canvasser for Mr.
Gower, was again proceeded with. He said he paid about
£lOO for refreshments and rooms in 1863, and expended
another £lOO in paying canvassers. It was a very long
election ; unfortunately, they were all long elections at
Reigate. The eloction of 1859 was the most earnest elec-
tion ho over remembered. About 160 voted for Wilkinson
without being paid anything. One Elan told him ho would
come up and vote without receiving anything if witness
would promise not to tell any one. (A laugh.) In 1858
witness worked for Wilkinson, but received nothing. In
February, 1858, he worked for Rawlinson ; there was a
good deal of bribery and treating going on at that election.
He received no money from Mr. Smith except by check.
The money he received in various sums amounted alto-
gether to £163 10s., including his own foe. Ho received
two chocks of £3O each from Smith in one day, and he took
his fee of £5O from amount.
The Chief Commissioner said that the account stood
thus :—Tho witness altogether received £163 10s. id. Of
this sum he paid £3O to Rose; he took £5O for his own fee ;
he paid £5 to his son, and about £24 10s. he paid to voters
making a total of £lO9 10s. How did he account for the
rest ?

Witness said he paid £3B to voters, and he thought the
Commissioner would find it so.
The accounts were again examined, and the total arrived
at was £lll 10s. paid out. Tho witness then added a num-
ber of incidental expenses and small bills, making a total
of £137 3s. ld. The balance, amounting to about £27, all
went for refreshments. The smaller checks, amounting to
£15105., he could not account for, unless they passed through
his hands to other persons and he neglected to enter thorn
in his account. It was impossible for him to say how many
out of 473 electors who voted for Ur. Gower received money.
All the money that passed through his hands in 1863 came
through Mr. Smith. It might amount to between £l5O and
£2OO. He then received £3O as his own fee. He then paid
to voters about £67 10s.; for refreshments and other ex-
penses, about £lOO ; to David Pitt,
captain of the battalion
of roughs, £2l 65., for himself and men; personal expenses,
£8 10s. It was pointed out to the witness that these sums
amounted to £227, when ho remarked that ho might have
bad as much as £240. He paid about 20 mon £3 each. (List
of names produced.) In 1859 he was Mr. Wilkinson's agent,
but received nothing for his own services. The sum that
then passed through his hands was £57 10s. He did not
believe that a single voter out of the 161 who voted for
Wilkinson was paid. In 1858 he received from £l5 to £2O
to pay for refreshments. He then worked for Mr. Rawlin-
son. He felt inclined to act for Mr. Doulton, and took the
chair at the first meeting; but Doulton told him that they
were sure to win, and meant to buy the borough; they had
money and meant to use it. He then seceded from Mr.
Doulton. He considered that this was an impudent thing
on the part of Mr. Doulton either to do or to say; no money
would buy his vote, and ho thought that the borough was
as pure as himself. (Laughter.) He told Mr. Doulton that
if that was his game he would have nothing to do with him.
(A laugh.) A great many strangers had since comp to live
in the borough, and he could not answer for them. Ho was
still of opinion that it was an impudent thing in Mr. Doul-
ton to say at that time that he meant to buy the borough,
and he should think it equally impudent for anyone to say
the same thing now. (A laugh.) lie thought so, notwith-
standing the payment to all those men at the last election.
That was no bribery. He did not consider a man impure
because he was on the list of those Who were to be paid for
their work. _

Sergeant O'Brien wished to know whether the wit-
ness adhered to the statement ho made yesterday, that Mr.
Gower was as well aware as witness on the day of polling
that voters were employed as canvassers and messengers,
and were being paid for their services ?
W im-
plicate Mr. Gower in any way, but that gentleman did com-
mitlid
and
e it
thact it
nnldwnaosthuynw be helped. Instead of
no moans his wish to
coming to his agents and tolling them cautiously to " put
i onei Witness
error,rep
on" a few voters, Mr. Gowerincautiously and injudiciously
stated before a meeting hold in that hall that those who
worked for him should be paid for their services. The re-
sult was that next day between 40 and 50 men came to wit-
ness to say that they had done such and such work for Mr.
Gowor. The agents for Mr. Gower heard that the Monson
party were coming among their voters and buying them
up. A deputation then went to Mr. Go wer and represented
the facts to him. Ho replied that he would consider the
matter, but ho did not quite see his way clear. It was un-
true that a meeting at the Black Horse the night before the
election witness told them they must bo more cautious
when the writ came down. What he told them was that
ho did not wish to interfere with their enjoyments, but
they were quite against the instructions that no meetings
were to be held in publichousos, and ho hoped they would
not do it again, especially as tho writ was coining nown.
Mr. Mulley (recalled) said ho had received £l2 alto-
gether, and paid more than that sum away.
John Andrews (recalled) said he sent in a bill for £l3los
for five weeks' canvassing and posting bills, but did not
receive it, and did not apply for it afterwards. When ho
was put on to work he was told ho should be paid for his
services, but no sum was mentioned. He received nothing
beyond the LI for the services rendered by his boy. (This
witness had led the commissioners to believe that he had
made no claim for anything.)

James Mills, gardener, a Gower voter, received 30s. after
the election from Job Aptod. Also received 7s. Gd. from G.
Pullen for watching ono night and a half.
David Howson, gardener, voted for Mr. Gower in 1863,
and received 30s• for ono week's work. Ile did not vote at

ration ; put it down as such." Being further questioned
on this point, ho declared that ho would not receive the
best £5OO for his vote, and ho would not vote again. Be-
ing reminded that while he said ho had only received 3Us.
in 1863 ho was put down as having received £3 from
Green, the witness said he did not receive the money. His
wife received XL Did not toll Featherstone, that he had
got nothing to vote for, and did not intend to vote.
W Woodman, bricklayer and builder, voted for Richard-
son at the last election. He acted for Mr. Monson, under
Mr. Nichols, in the capacity of messenger, but did not go
on his committee. He charged £35 for his work as mes-
senger, and was paid by Mr. Nichols two or three days
bZore the election. He sent in 1,11 account, but he would
not swear that he., gave a receipt when he was paid the
money. He had a copy of the account, and would bring it.
He could not say on what day he received the money. lie
could not tell what he did with it after he received it. It
went for housekeeping or bills. Ho kept it dark, and for
anything he knew Nichols and himself were the only persons
who knew of this transaction. He had had no conversation
with Nichols about this affair since the election, or about
the evidence he should give before the Commissioners. He
had paid no part of this £35 out of pocket. It was no groat
windfall, for it was not too much for his time. He could
have earned as much by his business. Ho did not promise
to vote for Mr. Monson when ho received the money.
Mr. John Andrews (recalled) said that on the polling
day he heard Featherstone ask Howson whether he had
voted ? Howson replied he had had nothing to vote for.
Featherstone then told him to come up to him at the Nor-
wich Arms to have some lunch.

Thomas Apps, labourer, voted in 1863 for Mr. Gower,
and received £1 each for the nomination and polling days
from Oordery. Had no vote at the last election.
Jabez Tyrrell, beershop-keeper, Earlswood, a Monson
voter, had £l5 from Thomas Jordan to be paid away to
two of witness's sons, and £5 for T. Furmell. One or two
little meetings were held at his house, and Jordan paid
him £3 or £4 for refreshments. Witness also received from
Jordan £lO for the use of his rooms.
The inquiry was then again adjourned.