The Sun.
London, England, 1859-10-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, OCTOBER 25, 1859.

these men was much more likely to provoke a breach
of it.
John Backhouse said, he was canvassed by Mr.
Sanderson and Mr. Serle for Charlesworth. No
money was offered him, but Mr. Sanderson said if
he voted for Charlesworth he would make a " first-
class tradesman" of him. Had been told by Edwin
Foster that he had got £4O from T. Kemp Sander-
son for voting for Charlesworth.
Edwin Foster was called, and swore positively
that no sueh conversation had ever taken place.
The only person who had ever offered him money
was Backhouse himself, who had promised him £l5
if he would stay away from the town on the polling
day.
Mrs. Gill said that Mrs. Atack, landlady of the
Mitre Inn, had offered to give her £2O if she would
persuade her husband to go away without voting.
Mrs. Atack was called, and acknowledged having
made the offer. Gill was always grumbling that
his vote was not as good as other people's, since
nobody offered him money for it, so she thought
she would try and get him some. She spoke to
Joe Brear on the subject, and Joe said she might
try to get Gill to go away, but he expected it would
be of no use. Mrs. Giil said she had no chance of
persuading her husband, for he had determined to
vote for Leatham.
John Halliday said he voted for Leatham. The
day before the election one of the strangers called
at his shop and offered to give him £l6O if he and
his son would vote for Charlesworth. Both refused
the offer.
Daniel Turner was bribed by a stranger to vote
for Charlesworth with £3O. It was given to his
wife after the polling-day in a paper parcel.
John Dawson, publican, voted for Leatham for
£3O, which was given to him by Shaw the pawn-
broker. Was offered £4O by Huscroft to vote for
Charlesworth, but he refused it.
Joseph Tunnycliffe, a labourer, in the employ of
Mr. G. W. Harrison, said he had: offered a voter
£4O to vote for Leatham, but the other side bought
him for £6O. Bribed another voter with £2O, and
got the money from Gilbert at Wainwright's office.
Was entirely a volunteer.
The witness was under examination when our
parcel was despatched. It is understood that at the
close of to-day's sitting the Commissioners will ad-
journ for some weeks, in order to give time for the
production of the missing witnesses.

GLOCESTB.R _ELECTION COMMISSION.

TWENTIETH DAY.
SHIREHALL, GLOCESTER, OCT. 24

On the Commissioners—Messrs. Vaughan, Fitz-
gerald, and Welford—resuming the inquiry this
morning,
_ _

Mr. S. Lovegrove, Sir R. Carden's agent, was
questioned with reference to what had taken place
between him and Mr. Bernard, who was examined
on Saturday. He stated that previous to receiving
the telegram per Mr. Bernard before the last elec-
tion he had had no communication with him. He
had seen Mr. Bernard in London last Friday, and
put him right with respect to the payment of the
second £lOO check spoken of by. Mr. Bernard on
Saturday. Mr. Lovegrove also wished to explain to
the Commissioners that he had gone to London for
the purpose of seeing Sir R. Carden, with the view
of going through the election accounts with him;
that Sir Robert went through the accounts and ex-
pressed himself satisfied with the distribution of
every shilling of the money charged. Mr. Love-
grove complained that covert attacks had been made
against him in respect of his account with Sir R.
Carden, and he wished it to be known that not a
sixpence had gone into his own pocket beyond the
ordinary fees.
Mr. Commissioner Vaughan said Mr. Lovegrove
was quite right in making the explanation.
The examination of voters who had been bribed
at the last two elections was then proceeded with.
H. Woodyatt was next called, but denied he had
received anything for his vote' or that he had told any
person that he had received £5. He had promised
to do hiq best fOr Sir R. Carden, but his emplofer,
Mrs. Wetherell, wished him to vote for Price and
Monk, and he accordingly did so.
Henry French, ostler, received £4 at the last
election for voting for Carden, and £2 in 1857
when he voted for Berkeley and Carden. He had
never voted for Price. [ln the printed poll-book
he was entered as voting in 1857 for Price and
Berkeley.]
Henry Castle was paid £lO at the last election
for voting for Carden, and nothing for voting for
him in 1857. Knew nothing about other persons
being bribed, and had no recollection of telling Mr.
Wilton that he could give evidence in that respect.
William Coopey received £7 from Ward for vot-
ing for Sir R. Carden at the last election, and £3
for persuading the others to poll the same way and
a sovereign afterwards for drink. Did not poll
for the dead man. Had a good deal of trouble
in persuading the others to vote for Carden,
" 'coz they'd been offered eight a piece on the other
side, and I had. to stand a good drop o' drink."
There were about eight or nine of them—two
brothers and three or fonr cousins, and William
Bowles. Had not taken up his freedom in 1857.
Mr. Brown (Conservative agent) paid for taking
up his freedom.
Joseph Coopey, one of the " persuaded," received
.E 7 to vote for Carden, and also stated that Brown
paid for taking up his freedom. He denied having
polled for the dead Coopey, who was his father.
Several other witnesses were examined who ad-
mitted that they had been bribed.
Mr. W. H. Cooke, barrister, Oxford Circuit, de-
posed that in 1856 Mr. Lovegrove asked him whe-
ther he knew any commercial man who would con-
test Glocester Conservative principles. He
thought of Sir R. Carden, and mentioned it to Mr.
Bernard as his friend. Mr. Bernard afterwards
told him he had seen Sir Robert, who said he
could not give an answer until he had seen some
parties from Glocester, Subsequently a day w
appointed for receiving a deputation from Gl6-
cester, and he accompanied them, and left
Sir Robert with the deputation to settle their own
affairs. Went with the deputation to Exchange-
buildings for the purpose of introducing them to
Mr. Bernard, and he was with the deputation when
they met Sir Robert Carden. His impression of the
result was that Sir Robert reserved any decision for
a time. No statement was made to Sir Robert
Carden by witness as to the cost of an election. Sir
Robert appeared in a hurry, and it seemed that this
was the first time the matter had been mentioned to

him. Witness purposely avoided mixing himself up
with local elections, being a barrister practising be-
fore the House of Commons. Mr. Bernard's evidence
quite astonished him as he read it in the papers of
that morning, but he was so sleepy in such matters
that he was not surprised at it. Passed through
Gloucester on the day of poll at the election of 1837,
and saw Mr. Lovegrove, and understood from him
that certain persons were to be put forward at the
last moment to vote for Price and Carden to put Ad-
miral Berkeleyout, and he expressed a hope that he
(Mr. Lovegrove) would not countenance it. In
April, 1857, Mr. Whithorn called on him in London,
and asked him to lend him £lOO ; that he had
made large payments, and was a good deal out of
pocket. He asked witness to lend him the money
until Mr. Lovegrove got it from Sir R. Carden. He
did not say that it was for illegal payments. There
was no occasion to do that if it were so. He gave
witness to understand that he should be repaid
when the election accounts were settled. The im-
pression on witness's mind was that as a petition
was pending it was not thought desirable to ask Sir
Robert to pay more money than was necessary.
Saw Sir R. Carden after the petition was decided,
and at Mr. Lovegrbve's suggestion told him that
the Glocester agents would be glad to have some
money, and Sir Robert gave him £l,OOO. Xo doubt,
when he paid that over to Mr. Lovegrove he deducted
from it the XlOO which he had advanced to Mr. Whit-

horn. Sir Robert expressed his surprise at the
large amount required, but witness did not think
he expressed any opinion that it must have been
expended in bribery. If Sir Robert had said he did
so, no doubt he did, but witness did not recollect it.
Certainly no check ever passed through his hands
to Mr. Bernard, and witness had no knowledge

himself of any bribery at the election. -Was coun-
sel on the petition of 1857. Had nothing whatever
too with the election of 1859, except the pleasure
of receiving some fees on the petition.
By Mr. Welford—l consider the Corrupt Prac-
tices Act at present a delusion and a snare if it was
intended to prevent bribery and treating. The
election auditor, to be an efficient person, should
be either a member of the bar or a person who could
not afford to be a partisan, and he considered he
should be competent and have the power to pay the
bills which were laid before him. Cannot imagine
any person going as a stranger to contest a borough
without £3,000 or £5,000 in his pocket. Know

_
, ,
Gloucester men were famous follows—" Blues and
Yellows"—and must have their beer, A Gloucester
election is a sort of saturnalia, and has been so ever
since Queen Anne.

Mr. Vaughan--Then, corrupt practices have not
a very strong opponent in you ?
Witness—Oh, of course,l do not approve of them
—but it is idle to shut your eyes to the fact that
such things exist. I don't patronise them, but if
you were to have a commission in every borough,
and if the people were equally honest, you would
have similar revelations.
Further evidence of corruption in 1857 was then
taken.

Several witnesses having bean examined, the
Commissioners adjourned for the day. It is under-
stood that they will conclude their labours on Wed-
nesday.