The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-27 00:00:00

shall not now trouble you with a long story. I
should, however, like first to settle the question
with respect to the rifleman, and, having had the
honour of commanding a rifle corps, I will tell him
that he must not be ashamed of getting behind a
tree or a furze bush, but he must remember that his
duty is to kill as many of the enemy as he can with
the least possible loss. (Hear, hear.) With respect
to the agriculturists, there is, indeed, very little for
a county member to talk about. Nobody would
find it very easy to point out a discontented farmer,
and all those questions which formerly used to
occupy men's attention are now left to learned
towns where social science congresses are held.
(Laughter.) Country bumpkins know nothing at
all about that. With respect to our present con-
dition as compared with the power of other nations,
I can only say if we have only 137,000 troops in
our pay, in the name of common sense, why are
97,000 of those men in India? Depend upon it,
if you lose London you will not hold India. One
great inducement you have to keep up a warlike
attitude is self-preservation. Let 20,030 foreigners
land upon the south coast of England, as all au-
thorities agree they could, and your dividends
would be worth nothing at all. It is a matter of
life and death, and you must, not sit still. You
must be defended by somebody, or you will never
be defended at all. (Hear, hear.)
" Prosperity to the Association" and other toasts
were then given, and the proceedings terminated.

GLOUCESTER ELECTION COMMISSION.

GLOUCESTER, WEDNESDAY.
The first witness examined this morning was Mr.
Taynton, zolicitor, who was concerned for the Con-
servatives. He denied the truth of *a statement
which had been made that he had bribed the father
of one of his clerks, named Dee, to vote for Sir R.
Carden at the last election.

M. Helps, Mayor of Gloucester, the agent of
Mr. Hope, stated that, as his evidence in re-
spect to the cost of former elections in which he
had been engaged had. been questioned,lio
tc say that he had referred to his books, and
found the expenses of the elections in which he was
concerned for Mr. Hope to be as follows:-1847;
election, £1,832 3s. 11d. ; 1852, £455 12s. ; 1853,
£693 7s. 7d. He received the following amounts
from Mr. Hope :-22d July, 1847, £500; Nov. 3,
£5OO ; Dec. 20, £600; Feb. 4, 1818, £250, There
were bands and colours in 1847, and also chairing,
and several legal agents were employed. In 1852
there was only one legal agent, and there were no
bands or colours, or chairing, which were all rather
expensive affairs. This accounted for the difference
in the cost of the two elections. No other money
passed through his hands than the above amounts.
Was certain no money was spent in bribery in 1847.
The friends and supporters of Mr. Hope were
treated to a dinner after the election. The cost of
this was included in the total he had given. Nume
rous public-house bills were sent in after the elec-
tion, amounting he should think to about £5OO,
but as these had been incurred without authority
both he and Mr. Hope refused to sanction them,
and they remained unpaid to the present day. Mr.
Hope had subscribed to most of the local charities,
perhaps to tile extent of £5O a year. If, for thepur-
vses of public justice, the commissioners desired to
go back to those elections in which he was, con-
cerned, he would place his books at their disposal ;
but in so doing he feared they would do a great
deal of harm by raking up so many affairs which
had long been forgiven and forgotten.
Mr. Commissi.nier Vaughan intimated that they
did not intend to minutely inquire into the elec-
Cons prior to 1857.
Examination continued—ln 1847 Mr. Hope
heard that a public-house had been opened on his
behalf, and he threatened to resign if that course
was going to be pursued. The bills having been
sent in, Mr. llope said lie would pay every one
which witness considered he was liable for. Mr.
Hope was not in the habit of subscribing to a fund
to meet the expenses attending municipal contests
by the Conservative party, but witness once heard
that he subscribed -110 towards the expenses of one
gentleman who had been elected. HaviAg been
asked the character of the bills sent in in
reference to the 1847 election, he was glad
of the opportunity of vindicating himself
from a charge of having received the money
to pay them, and, appropriated it to his own pur-
poses. He did not believe a-single farthing was spent
in bribery in 1847. The most ancient charter of Glou-
cester was granted by Richard 1., and Gloucester.
was summoned to send representatives to the first
assembly of the Commons of the realm.. The cor-
poration now had no power of patronage, by which
they could influence votes.
Mr. E. Washbourn, solicitor, said he was co-agent
with the last witness in the elections of 1847 and
1852. He had more is do with the details of those
elections than Mr. Helps. The expenses of the 1847
election were rather more than he had stated them
to be. They were a little over £2,000. Witness
did not believe the unpaid publicans' bills of that
-election amounted to more than 1:200,---There was
no bribery in 1847, although the cost was so much
more than in 1852. The dinner to the electors, tae
bands, the chairing, the colours and the employ-
ment of more legal agents were the causes of the
larger outlay.
Mr. D. M. Walker gate the commissioners some
information they desired as to the various charters
which had been granted to the city of Gloucester.
Mr. S. Herbert, solicitor, denied that he had ever
offered a bribe of £3 to one of the notorious Coopeys,
as had been stated.

Mr. Karn, wine and spirit merchant, denied that
persons were freely allowed to go into his vaults to
drink on the election day. Some gentlemen called
on that day•and had some brandy and water, but
with no election object.
The following witnesses who bad received bribes
were then examined :

William Brown, £3 to vote for the Liberals
Price and Monk, in 1857. Re voted for Carden.
Received £1 for his services in making out voting,
papers on the polling day.
E. Roberts, £2 for voting for Carden in 1857.
_ _

Joseph Davis, £3 for voting for Carden in 1859.
George Davis, £3 ss, for voting for Carden in
1859 ; and 10s. in 1857.

John Bagley, £5, for voting for Carden in 1859.
Henry Hancock, ; Thomas Kent, £5 ; and
Robert 'Williams £2, for voting for Price and Monk.
The latter witness stated that he had ♦oted for
Carden in 1857, in order to get some damage which
he had sustained made good by the Gloucester
Board of Health, the Conservatives having a pre-
ponderance at the board.
Thomas Fletcher received £lO for voting for

Carden at the last election. Was offered £5 on the
other side,-and got £1 on account, but he found his
wife had had £lO given her for his vote for Carden.
He was going to return the sovereign which had
been advanced, but was insulted, and then kept it.
William Smith £3, for voting for Price and
Monk; voted for Berkeley and Price in 1857, but
received nothing.
Joseph Lovett £5, for voting for Carden in 1859.
John B elder £3, for voting for Carden in 1857.
John Phillips £2 10s., for voting for Price and
Monk.
James Sallerbank £2, for ditto.
James M'Coy and Henry Hatch each £5, for
votinc, for Carden in 1859.
Shadrachc Wood 505., for voting for Carden in

1857.
James Rudge voted for Carden in 1857. Sup-
plied refreshments to the value of £7. Should not
have voted for Carden but for the order for the re-
freshments.
Amelia Jeynes received £5 for her husband's
vote for Carden in 1859.
Mrs. Hannah Davis deposed to Mr. Ayres, one of
the Liberal party, calling upon her, and after he had
gone she found five sovereigns on the table. Her
husband did not knuw of this until after the elee-

tion.
James Westbury voted for Carden in 1857; five
months after the election he received £B. A bill of
£9 19s. had been contracted by Mr. Hope's friends
in 1857.
Mr. Samuel Lovegrove, timber merchant, bribed
a voter in his employ with 50s. to vote for Carden
in 1857.
John Davis, a publican, gave a supper to a num-
ber of voters at the last election. Had not been
paid his bill of £6 15s.
Mr. Dowding, a publican on the Conservative
side, was in a similar predicament.
George Winfield received £lO from Mr. Robin-
son, corn merchant, and paid a doctor's bill of £8
2s. 6d. for the vote of a man named Ncwth, since
dead. Spent the balance in treating.
Mr. Stafford, chemist, contested a municipal elec-
tion in 1854. The contest cost him £3OO, part of
which was paid by subscription.
Mr. Griffiths swore he never stated he had not
been bribed, while two witnesses swore he had so
stated.
A large number of other witnesses were examined
who had received bribes.
The inquiry will terminate to-morrow (Thunday).