ELECTORAL CORRUPTION.
The Gloucester Election Commission has resumed its sittings, while the Wakefield Commissioners have suspended theirs until the 11th of Novem- ber, when they will meet again in London.
At Gloucester the inquiry was reopened on Saturday, with the exami- nation of several members of the notorious Coopey family ; who stated the amounts of their several bribes. The sum of 7/. appears to have been the average in their case.
Mr. Julian Bernard was then examined, and his connexion with the election was investigated.
He had accompanied Sir Robert Carden to Gloucester in 18-57, but not during the present year. He advanced various sums of money to Lovcgrove at the last election. On one occasion Mr. Lovegrove took him into another room and said he had intended to ask Sir Robert Carden for a cheque for 5001., but that Sir Robert only gave him 3001., and he did not wish to trouble him for more so soon, and asked witness for a cheque. Witness inferred that the money was wanted for legitimate election expenses and gave a cheque for the amount.
A second cheque for 100/. was, after the election, sent by witness from London. Subsequently told Sir R. Carden in London he had advanced 200/., on his account at Gloucester, to Mr. Lovegrove ; and he repaid the money. He did not seem particularly satisfied about it. About a week be- fore the last election he telegraphed to Mr. Lovcgrove to meet him at the Gloucester station as he was passing through on his way to Hereford and Ross. Witness was anxious to hear the prospects of Sir R. Carden's return. " The telegram was not sent in my name. I do not recollect the name it was sent in. The reason why I employed a feigned name probably was that I was anxious to avoid seeing any of Mr. Lovegrove's friends. I positively swear that the interview sought with Mr. Lovegrove was not sought in order to make a money arrangement with reference to the election. I was not satisfied, after my interview, of Sir Robert's chance of success. I intended to have gone on to Rosa on urgent business at three o'clock, but in consequence of what passed between me and Mr. Lovegrove I returned to Loudon the same night. I wanted to return to London to make provision for sending some money which Mr. Lovegrove requested. Mr. Lovegrove led me to infer that 500/. would be wanted ; and he said he did not know whom to apply to but myself. Understood that the money was wanted for election purposes, but I did not know what were the legal expenses. If by bribery you mean the purchase of voters I certainly did not think the money was wanted for bribery. It did not occur to me that if it was wanted for strictly legal purposes the proper person to apply to was Sir Robert Carden himself. After I returned to London I sent down 500/. in two half-notes by different posts. One was addressed to Mr. Lovegrove. I advanced the money in good faith, and my impression was that when Mr. Lovegrove set- tled with Sir R. Carden he should be repaid."
Mr. Lovegrove was examined with reference to the meeting with Mr. Bernard, and he stated that he had had no communication with that gentle- man previous to the receipt of the telegram.
Mr. W. H. Cooke, a barrister on the Oxford circuit, could not imagine any person going as a stranger to contest a borough without taking 30001. to 5000/. in his pocket. Knew Gloucester men were famous fellows. A Gloucester election is a sort of saturnalia, and has been so ever since Queen Anne.
It was believed that the Commissioners would conclude their inquiry yesterday.
At Wakefield Mr. Charlesworth was recalled on Saturday, and an effort was made to ascertain the name of the stranger who, during the elec- tion, was known as the "Man in the Moon." Mr. Charlesworth, how- ever, could give no information concerning him. Mr. Sergeant Pigott—" I cannot help thinking that if the subordinates of your party had had a good example set them by the heads, they would have been much more likely to have spoken with sincerity and truth. Al- though Wakefield may have a notoriety for bribery, I cannot see why it should covet a notoriety for perjury as well." Mr. Charlesworth—" I do not believe that Wakefield has acquired a no- toriety for bribery." Mr. Sergeant Pigott—" It is with very great regret we find that all the heads of your electioneering staff are absent—your cousin, Mr. John Barn' Charlesworth, Mr. Jose Fernandez, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Serle. Can you give us a clue to anybody who is likely to give us sa- tisfactory information as to who the stranger ' was ?" Mr. Charlesworth—"I cannot."
Several individual instances of bribery were then proved.
Mrs. Mountain said her husband was a voter, but stood neutral. On the day of the election two strangers called at her house and offered 100/., 200/., or 2501. if she would tell where her husband was. She said she could not tell them if they gave her 10001. J. T. Stephenson, a non-elector, said- " I canvassed Tower, the hair-dresser, for Mr. Charlesworth. Tower gave me to understand that he wanted money. I wrote down 101. on a piece of paper, he laughed at me ; I wrote down 201., he shook his head ; I wrote down 301. and 401., he said that was no use at all. I asked him then to write down his own price, and he put it at 601., when I left him without any further conversation." (Tower is the man who sold the hair-brush to Sharpley for 40/., and voted for Leatham.) Two voters named Leighton returned on Monday to contradict evi- dence they had formerly given, and to acknowledge having received bribes to vote for Charlesworth. Mr. Thomas Alder did not believe that 17001. represented all the money spent in bribery on Mr. Charlcsworth's side, and thought it very probable that the election cost him more than 4000/. It must have cost Mr. Leatham much more—twice as much—
for he was an unpopular candidate. • At about half past four on Monday, Mr. Sergeant Pigott said that the inquiry would stand adjourned till 11th of November, when it would be resumed in London.
Previous page
