The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-26 00:00:00

WAKEFIELD ELECTION COMMISSION.

WAKEFIELD, SATURDAY.
The Commissioners met this morning at 10 o'clock
in the Sessions-house. The first witness called was
Mr. Henry Edmund Gurney, one of the firm of
Overend and Gurney, who said—l am brother-in-
law to Mr. W. H. Leatham. Just before the last
election for Wakefield I received a letter from Mr.
Leatham stating that he was about to stand for
Wakefield. I have only half the letter by me, for
I tore off the sheet which relates to business matters
and destroyed the other. It is headed " Confiden-
tial," and after mentioning that he was going to
stand a contest, it goes on thus :
" I shall want some moneyfor ways and means, and rather
than draw it from the bank, where there are some clerks who
might talk, I have been thinking that you would not mind
ins askinc, you—that is, 0., G. and Co., lending me £l,OOO
for a shortp time, so as not to q known at Leatham, Tow,
and Co. If you see no objection to meet my wishes I would
thank you to send the money in four divisions in registered
covers, waiting the acknowledgment of each. Let it be in
Bank of England notes of small amount—fives, tens, and
twenties. The money is wanted for legitimate purpose. 4,
as ray agent is not a moneyed man, as well as for some —.
There the half-sheet stops; What there was on the
other side I can't recollect. I sent this half of the
letter into the office, and directed the clerks to for-
ward £l,OOO as requested. It was sent down in
four packets of £250 each, addressed to " Mr.
Wainwright, solicitor, Wakefield." Shortly after-
wards my brother-in-law wrote to me for another
£5OO, which was sent, and in a little time after for
£l,OOO, which was also sent to Mr. Wainwright.
I have not kept the two last letters ; the first, to the
best of my recollection, merely contained a request
to send another £5OO, and in the second I think Mr.
Leatham remarked that he found the contest more
expensive than he expected. That was all the money
we sent down, and all the correspondence I had
about the Wakefield election with anybody. I
never wrote to Mr. Leathern, sen., on the subject.
Mr. Wainwright sent us receipts for each parcel as
it reached him—for £2,500 in all. He generally
sent them in a roundabout way, enclosing them to
a friend of his in London, who posted them to us
there.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—Can't you supply the con-
tents of the missing half-sheet?
Mr. Gurney—l haven't the least idea what it was
—some indifferent personal matter or other.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—What word followed the
" some " at the end of the sheet here ; was it a cant
word for bribery—" sugar," for instance, or any-
thing else like that ?
Mr. Gurney—Certainly not.
Mr. Willes—You see the language of the note,
" for legitimate purposes, and for some —," im-
plies that a contrast of some sort followed ?
Mr. Gurney—l see that, of course, but lam quite
sure there was nothing suggestive of bribery in the
note. Mr. Leatham may have said that the other
side were not likely to lose for want of spending
money, and he should like to be prepared for them.
I think he did say something of that sort, but that
was all.
Mr. Willes—What did you understand by that !
Mr. Gurney—Well, from my experience in
county elections, I knew that a good deal of money
is spent in bringing up voters from the country and
the like, when the contest is close, which would not
be spent under ordinary circumstances, an I
thought it might be for something of that sort. If
I had thought the money was for bribery of course
I should not have sent it.
Mr. Willes—Had you no suspicions, when' all
this large sum of money was sent for, that some of
it was to be applied to illegitimate purposes ?
Mr. Gurney—With the two first sums I had not
the slightest suspicion. When the third applica-
tion came I did make the remark that " Wakefield
seemed an expensive place. I had no knowledge
of Wakefield, and I had such complete confidesice
in my brother-in-law that it never entered my mind
that the money was for bribery.
Mr. -Wainwright (Leatham's agent) was recalled,
and said—After hearing Mr. Gurney's evidence,
of course I cara have no further doubt that the sum
which I ric from London was 12,500. (Mr. Wain-
wright's original statement was that Messrs. Ove-
rend and Gurney had only sent down £2,000, and
he accounted only for the expenditure of that sum.)
Ts have heard since giving my former evidence that
Messrs. Overend had r_ay
receipts for the larger
amount, and I have tried to remember how the ad-
ditional £5OO was spent, but I can't. I have talked
it over with Gilbert, but he is positive that he only
received £2,0(;0. I have no money myself. My
impression is that I gave Gilbert all the money I
received as it (same in, though I won't undertake to
swear it. The accounts were loosely kept—pur-
posely, of course, but I expected Gilbert to account
for all the money spent. The receipts for £2,500,
which Mr. Gurney has handed in are in my hand-
writing. There can be no doubt that £2,500 was
the amount I received.
Mr. Wines—Have you that £5OO in your posses-
sion now?
Mr. Wainwright—Certainly not, and I have no
recollection of having paid it into my bankers' at
any time. During the election I employed a clerk
named. Bigg. He was a good deal in communica-
tio:A with Gilbert, but I don't think that Gilbert
lover employed him in bribery. About the time of
the petition I received a letter from Bigg, telling
, me that the other side had offered him £5O to give
evidence before the committee, but that if I would
give him some money he would prefer to assist me.
I took no notice of him.
Benjamin Watson acted as stakeholder during
the election for a voter named Lang. He was to
have £35 for voting for Leatham, and witness kept
the money for him and gave hiim a promissory
note for the amount until he had voted. Lang,
however, did not vote at all.
John Lang, landlord of the Bay Horse, said ho
had arranged to vote for Leatham for £35, which
was put into Watson's hands. He gave me a pro-
missory note for the amount. After that bargain
was concluded the " Man in the Moon" offered me
£5O to vote for Charlesworth. I took the £5O and
promised my vote, but on reflection I found I should
offend a great many of my friends if I voted that
way, so I determined to stand neutral. My wife was
offered £lOO for a warming-pan ii I would vote for
Leathern, but I was in bed at the time, and don't
know who made the offer. I didn't particularly
want any money for my vote from either side, but it
was difficult to refuse it when it was almost cram-
med down one's throat. (Laughter.)
Thomas Haigh said,—All that I had to do with
the last election was suggesting that a voter named
Harrison should keep out of the way. I said I
would guarantee that he could have £3O for stopping
away. I didn't know where the money was to come
from. I knew, of course, that bribery was going
on in the town, as everybody else did. It was as
commonly talked of in the town as the price of
wheat or the state of the weather. The prices were
quoted at all figures, from the highest to the lowest.
There was not a gentleman in the town who didn't
know that bribery was going on with both parties.
I often talked about it myself, but I certainly did
not know that it was going on to the extent which
has been disclosed here.
Wm. Shaw, farmer, said—l bought Benjamin
Johnson's vote for Mr. Charlesworth; £lO was the
price paid. I got £2O from Joe Brear to do the job
with ; £lO I gave to Johnson ' • £2 10s. to Wm.
Johnson, who• went with me • £7 10s. was spent in
expenses, treating, and the like.
Edwin Link was examined as to offers said to
have been made by him to a voter named Arundel
on behalf of the Liberal party.
Mr. Sergeant Pigott—You are described to us as
a " mesmerizer." Do you answer to that descrip-
tion ?
"Witness—Well, if folk are susceptible to the
"influence" I can manage it. (Laughter.)
Mr. Sergeant Pigott Did you "mesmerise"
Arundel ?
Witness—All I did was to promise Arundel that
he should have some money if he would vote for
Leathern. He had pledged for us, and I was sent
to find out -whether he was sticking firm or whether
the other side had tampered with him. I gave him
a general assurance that we would cover whatever
the Conservatives offered. I did that with several
voters.
William Armstrong (one of the Liberal bribery
agents), recalled, said—£so was the highest sum I
ever gave a voter. It is not true that I over
gave £75 to one voter.
George Smith, butcher, said—l voted for Lea-
tham and got £3O for it. William Osterfield gave
it me. I had £l5 in hand. £l5 was given me on
the Monday after the poll.
William Osterfield--I bribed tho last witness,
as he has said. I got the money from Gilbert at
Wainwright's office. Nobody directed me to go
there—it was entirely of my own accord that I went
there. I had heard that there was money to be got
there. I saw Mr. Wainwright and asked him how
much money he would give if I got a man to vote
for them. He said, " I have nothing to do with
find
a ; you must go into that room and you will
found
illfind
a gentleman there who will talk to you.
Gilbert there. Nobody set me on Smith
t
vote
anldhaaspkpeedn
hime d t ohmo
Nevethhe meantimju
before thet gethis
He
elec-
tion,d
said he had not made up his mind, but he intended
to vote for those who would give himmost
money.
st
to
vote.o
That was what made me go to Wainwright. Gil-
bert gave £1 los. besides the £3o—to spend in
liquor at one or two public-houses where the land-
lords belonged to our own side.
Mr. W. L. Sellars said--I paid £4O to Newsome,
to give to her
who keeps the White House,. to vote for Leatham
—at least I gave it to his daughter
father. I got the money from Gilbert. The bargain
had been made before by Woodhead.
Sarah Newsome said—l am the daughter of '
the landlord of the 'White House. After the last