Bedford inquirer. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1857-1884, 1869-01-08

system Of treating, which, 10 some cases.
was protracted for a month, and partly from
the cost Of conveying voters to the poll
which, in counties with only one polling
place, must have been gigantic An cleo
ton for Yorkshire before the Reform Bib
cost one hundred and fifty thousand pounds,
without a contest Bribery was very
small item in the sum total
The report Of the committee which sat
on the Saubury petition is one Of the most
amusing Of the whole number, and presents
US with some striking examples Of that re-
markable shortness Of memory and singular
bIuntness eff perception which, in obedienes
to some physical law Hot yet discovered, Is
generated By the atmosphere Of elections.
It vas shown ia that inquiry that q
gentleman Of position in the town SAT IN
room at a hotel, before large table, en-.
ployed during the whole Of the polling-day
in making out tickets, aud as fast as voters
Who bad polled for The right men wsre
brought into the room and yonchca taF-
they each received one of these t'ekeis
fatket 10 nanu, these deserving men then
crossed the market place to another hotel,
where another gentleman was stationed be-
fore another table, and as each man pre-
sented bis ticket he received in return fonr
sogereigns from the gentleman But hre
was shown the singular and morbifc char.
acter of The atmosphere 20 which we have
already referred The gentleman who made
out the tickets, though he issued nearly two
hundred, and all the recipients were his
low-townsmen, could not remember ihe
name OF single one of them lie re-
membered the names Of eighty voters who
had not received tickets, but of the two
hundred whose names he had written down
himself, not one But this remarkable
affection of the memory was more than
equalled by the temporary loss of reason
With which the same unhappy gentleman
was seized on the same occasion. Being
asked what be thought would be done with
these tickets, he replied that be couldn't t
imagine, nor did he recover the use Of his
faculties as long as the commissioners were
setting.
I'm other cases, one observes a kind of
morbid anxiety not to exceed the truth-a
laborious moderation Of statement deserving
ofthe utmost honor, rather than oblivious-
ness or dullness. A tradesman iu the town,
who had recommended the formation Of a
fund for electioueering purposes, was asked
how it was spent He did not know. Was
il used to buy voters? Well, he really could
not say. Itmight have been; it was feasible
to suppose 1t was, but he should not like to
speak positively. Similarly, a cauvasser for
one of the parties, who had referred very
exacting voter to the agent, when requested
to state with what design he so referred him,
said with no design in particular; the agent
would take the business off his hands.
What would the agent do? He had not the
slightest idea. Would he buy the mans
vote He could not say He might, per
haps, but it was a mere suppositiou And
50 on with witness after witness.
But, after all. perhaps the funniest
bribery came out after the general election
of 1859. Wakefield appears to have
been nearly as bad as St. Adams, In this
instance the bribery was of the most whole
sale and unguarded character. The evidence
Is very amusing. Money there was called
sugar; and the reception of it, having your
hand scratched. One John jackson
had his hand scratched with thirty pounds,
worth Of the luscious article; but as thirty
FIVE had been promised, the only effect was
to lose his vote aud convert him into an
active enemy at the same time. These
miscarriages Of injustice were not inlre-
nueut