The Commissions appointed to investigate the state of the 
Parliamentary constituencies of Gloucester and Wakefield only 
confirm, by their daily disclosures, the saying of old Coppock, the 
late electoral agent of the Reform Club,’ that the real Constitu- 
tion of the British House of Commons might be summed up in 
the word Corruption. The present inquiry derives a_ peculiar 
interest from the circumstance that Gloucester is a_ rotten 
borough *” of old standing, while Wakefield is a constituency 
created bv the Reform act,°” and that the Gloucester briber is an 
outrageous Tory, Sir Robert Carden, of Dogberry memory, while 
the Wakefield briber is a Radical, Mr. Leatham, the brother-in-law 
of Mr. Bright. In both cases, the childlike innocence of the 
Parliamentary candidates is something refreshing in this wicked 
age of skepticism. Both candidates find the money for the 
purchase of votes, but both take good care not to know where the 
money goes. From the beginning of the election to its end, their 
solicitors’ bills run up in a geometrical progression, but at the 
same ratio increases their belief in the immaculate purity of the 
constituencies which to represent in Parliament they confess the 
highest aim of their worldly ambition.* Take, first, that pattern of a 
Quaker, honest Mr. Leatham. In 1857, he stood for Wakefield, 
and employed a solicitor of the name of Wainwright as his “legal 
friend.” This Wainwright, in a fit of openheartedness, takes his 
friend the Quaker aside and surprises him, innocent Leatham, 

Times, No. 23436, October 13, 1859.— Ed. 

who had considered himself V’homme qu’on aime pour lui-méme, and 
the candidate to be elected pour le roi de Prusse,? by the shakingly 
shrewd remark that an election was a question of £. s. d., and that 
consequently the “needful” ought to be found. Wainwright fixed 
the amount of cash required at £1,000. Leatham exclaims: “I have 
not got it, but I will borrow it,” and, as true as his word, has 
£1,000 sent over to Wainwright by Overend & Gurney, the 
Quaker bankers of Lombard street, London. Shortly after, 
Wainwright, who seems given to confidential pourparlers, takes 
Leatham again “aside,” whispers in his ear that he had found out 
the election would grow more expensive than at first contem- 
plated, and insists upon another £500. Innocent Leatham “thinks 
this rather strange,” but, on further consideration, and remember- 
ing that the election of 1852 had cost £1,600, he extended the 
credit to £500 more, but the most curious thing is that he feels not 
quite sure-as to the source from which these £500 flowed. Again, 
two weeks later, stern Wainwright insists upon another supply of 
£1,000, and now Purity Leatham waxes quite melodramatic. 

“T was,” says he, “much vexed at this, and said as much to him, and also said 
that there were a great many things I did not like about his office. I had noticed a 
great many strange people about the office, and hoped there was nothing wrong 
going on. He said, ‘You must leave that to me and ask no questions. You must give 
me the command of another £1,000, though I don’t think I shall want it.’ I was 
foolish enough to consent, and I believe the money was obtained from the same 
source as before.”4 

The mysterious stranger who “obtained the money” is Mr. 
Leatham’s partner, being not present at the pending inquiry 
because, at this rather unseasonable time of the year, he has 
caught the whim of setting out upon a trip over the Continent. 

If Quaker Leatham, despite his credulous temper, has misgiv- 
ings of his own, but contrives to comfort his conscience by “asking 
no questions,” Sir R. Carden, on the other hand, since “to the 
pure all things are pure,” felt so much edified by his Gloucester 
election experiments in 1857, that, in 1859, he stood again for the 
same borough, although this time unsuccessfully. The very reason 
that induced him to walk into St. Stephen’s** on the shoulders of 
Gloucester was, that he thought Gloucester to be so pure that it 

would be an honor and distinction to represent it in Parliament, 
“whereas Coppock and his myrmidons*” used to call Gloucester 
the cheese,” because it was “so deliciously decayed”; in one word, 
so fully-flavored a sink of corruption. From £500, at which the 
necessary electoral expenses were at first settled, they were by 
sudden expansions swelled to something like £6,000, but still, and 
even after the Auditor’s return fixing the legal expenses at £616 
8s. Id., Sir R. Carden’s conviction of the purity of the Gloucester 
proceedings remained unshaken. 

“He had believed the election had been pure until only a day or two ago, when he 
was positively shocked to hear the horrible revelations that had been made. Those 
revelations had taken him quite by surprise.” 

The electoral philosophy of the Parliamentary candidates, then, 
consists simply in allowing their left hand not to know what their 
right hand does, and thus they wash both hands in the water of 
innocence. To open their breeches’ pockets, ask no questions, and 
believe in the general virtue of mankind, serves best their purpose. 

As to the legal gentry, solicitors, attorneys, and_ barristers, 
employed in the electoral business, they, of course, have a legal 
claim to their professional fees. They cannot be expected to spend 
their time and “manage” the thing for nothing. Why, exclaimed 
one of the Gloucester M.P. makers, 

“T bean’t a-going to let’em have my vote for nothing. Look at the twenty-four 
lawyers having their £25 down and five guineas a day a piece, and I bean’t a-going 
to let'em have mine for nothing.” 

And, says Mr. George Buchanan, a gentleman who canvassed in 
company with Sir R. Carden, 
“In fact, it was a general scramble for money, and I do not like to hear so much 

obloquy thrown on poor men who took 3s. 6d. a day, while the professional men 
who made heavy charges for doing nothing, escaped.’ 

Now, as to the M.P.’s makers themselves, a few examples will 
suffice to characterize them. Mr. W. Clutterbuck, a solicitor, and 
canvasser in behalf of Sir R. Carden, chuckles in his sleeves while 
stating that 

“Gloucester is as corrupt a place as any in England.” 

No. 23434, October 11, 1859.— Ed. 

No. 23432, October 8, 1859.— Ed. 

He had set his eyes upon “the Coopeys.” There are eight or 
nine of the Coopeys, a family that, from immemorial times, have 
played a prominent part in the Gloucester elections. They are, says 
-Clutterbuck, “people you must amuse,” and, consequently, he 
went to the Coopeys, and smoked a pipe with the Coopeys, and 
gossiped with the Coopeys, and held out to them no direct 
promises, by no means, but “led them to believe so and so.” In his 
track, there followed Mr. John Ward, a builder, who offered the 
Coopeys £5 each. Two of the Coopeys, he says, were bribed. One 
of them was dead, but somebody polled in his stead. 

“T,” says Mr. John Ward, builder, “gave to nine of them £5 each,’ and the dead 
man £3. The man was dead at the election of 1857, but he polled for Sir 
R. Carden there.” 

Then comes Mr. Maysey. 

He found “bribery was going on to any extent” and consequent- 
ly he bought electors from £2 to £12 the piece. The fortunate 
mortal who fetched £12 was one Evans. 

“The man,” says our venerable hairdresser, “was well acquainted with all the 
low voters. Evans was worth £20, both as a voter and a spy.” 

It appears that Maysey, the heroic hairdresser, instructed a 
number of roughs with one Clements at their head, on the 
nomination day, to forcibly carry off an old voter named Wathen 
from the White Lion, but he (Maysey) did not see that lion’s “coat 
torn off his back.” The man, he says, by way of examination, “was 
too old and blind to resist, and was drunk beside.” At Wakefield, 
higher prices were paid than at Gloucester, one vote costing from 
£5 to £70. At the same time, more violent means were here 
resorted to by the contending parties. One Mr. Smith, whose 
experience extends over a great many years, expressed his opinion 
that Wakefield was the most corrupt constituency in Europe, and 

October 7, 1859. The Times, No. 23432, October 8, 1859.— Ed. 

23433, October 10, 1859.— Ed. 

that money and beer would carry any election there.* In the latter 
stage of the fight going on between Quaker Leatham, the Radical, 
and Mr. Charlesworth, the Conservative, “it was known all over 
town that there was plenty of money to be got at the office of 
Wainwright,” the immaculate Quaker’s agent. The one great 
feature that distinguished the Conservatives from the Liberals, was 
that the latter did not occasionally refrain from issuing “flash 
notes,” ” while the former paid in sterling money. About half a 
dozen Wakefield voters formed.a club, with a view of turning the 
scale whichever way they liked when the poll should come to a 
close. One J. F. Tower, a barber, voted for Mr. Leatham because 
one of Mr. Leatham’s canvassers gave him £40 for a hair-brush. 
John Wilcox, a peculiarly conscientious fellow, did not vote at all, 
having received £25 to vote for Leatham and £30 to vote for 
Leatham’s rival. “So he balanced it by staying away altogether.” 
One Benjamin Ingham, who voted for Leatham, could not say 
how much money he got, since “he was generally drunk at the 
time.” * The Tories inveigled one James Clark, a fortune-teller and 
planet-ruler, into an inn, where they got him drunk, and “kept 
him for some days in a room of the hotel, with plenty to eat and 
to drink.” He, nevertheless, tried at last to escape, and voted for 
Leatham, “partly a desire to spite the Blues” for keeping him 
locked up, and partly to get £50.” 

There was, furthermore, one William Dickinson, a plumber by 
profession, and at work in the morning at Mr. Teal’s bleach-works. 

“On going into a room upstairs, to get some more piping to finish his job, the 
door was suddenly banged to from the outside, locked and nailed. There were 
three men and a boy in the room to keep him quiet, and they had a rope to tie him 
with if necessary.’’4 

Altogether, if the Liberals excelled by their “flash-notes,” the 
Conservatives were remarkable for their resort to main force. 

No. 23432, October 8, 1859.— Ed. 

No. 23433, October 10, 1859.— Ed. 

Now, with respect to these disgusting disclosures of the English 
electoral system, old Lord Brougham thought fit to make a long 
speech at Bradford,* wherein he confesses that the offense of 
bribery has been growing rapidly, that it was comparatively rare 
before 1832, but had increased fast since the Reform Act of that 
year and that he intended to diminish it. And what is the curious 
remedy hit upon by Lord Brougham? To withhold the Franchise 
from the working classes until the lower-middle class, which is 
bribed, and the higher classes that bribe them, shall have mended 
their ways! The dotage of old age can alone account for such a 
paradox. 

Written on October 18, 1859 

Tribune, No. 5783, November 4, 1859; Daily Tribune