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

THE SUN, LONDON, THI RSDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 11, 1866.

going away, so I. did not like to ask him. I hope
it is not true. lam sure it has not been his fault.
lle says if they had only sent him before one
battalion of Bersaglieri it would never have happened,
because at the beginning there were very few ; but
he had nothing but some recruits of three months'
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. 111.‘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 bad 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.
Wittiess's-total expenditure in 1859 was £1,159 2s.
4d. He 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. Ile 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. He 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 eke-
don ought to be carried by the Liberals. Ile could
not account for Mr. Brogden's supplying himself
with so large a sum as £6,000. No doubt Mr. Brog-
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. Mr.
Livingston told witness and Mr. Young that they
could only win by spending money, but they said
that they had already provided more money than
was necessary, which was neither admitted nor
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
bhe constituency were honest and good men, although
many were made bad by temptations thrown in their
way and local influences. He believed that the
" screw" was applied as hard as it could be. In 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
bliykethdepboewere-rs,eallng influence. Ile thought that unduenid this was purchased in Yarmouth
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 11. 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,
arid witness also was a well-known county man.
Witness did not 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 of money
in an illegal way.
Witness's impression was that