amounted to about £1,000.
The Contrived Election - Wholesale Bribery - Parliamentary Enquiry
Summers Hanford, Esq. being examined, said -Mr. Hanford paid £200 of that, and I was liable for the remainder. The cost of the contest was £5,000, which with the expense in defending the petition was £6,000. I believe the treating cost about £2,000 and sundries (which may be interpreted as bribery) about £1,500. I did not know what was the Lewes election practice, and was hardly acquainted with a single voter until I went there. In fact I was either in Hastings or London during nearly the whole of the canvass. I was not cognizant of any bribery by agents or partisans until after the election. When the compromise was arranged, I was cognizant of an agreement that all pending proceedings should be stayed, and I especially stipulated that all bribery actions should be withdrawn. When the bills came in after the election, I and Mr. Hanford was startled at the enormous amount, and I thought that the publican's charges for treating - some of which occurred after the testo of the writ - would endanger our seats, yet, so far as I am aware no charge of direct bribery could be substantiated.
Mr Clarke, of the firm of Clarke, Fynmore and Fladgate, in the course of his examination said -I had an understanding with the party at Lewes that the probable expense to me would be £1,500, and my arrangement with Mr. Elphinstone was that he should pay £1,000 to my £1,500. I had to pay, however, between £2,000 and £2,400, my agent having the bills and receiving from me the money. Although Mr. Elphinstone was lower than I was on the poll, I consented to give up my seat because I would not spend any more money, and not because I was sure that I could not retain my seat. Being at the head of the poll, I thought I might as well be in Parliament as Mr. Elphinstone.
We were employed as agents for the petition, Mr. Fitzroy being really our client, Lord Cantelupe having separate solicitors who communicated with us. We received about £400 whilst the case was going on. The whole amount of our bill was about £1,200, a considerable portion of which is unpaid. Lord Cantelupe has not paid any portion, but I expect he will, it is now under consideration. In the case for the petitioners, there were charges of extensive abduction, cooping and treating after the testo of the writ.
The case against Mr. Elphinstone was not so strong as against Mr. Hanford, but I think we should have succeeded against both Members. It would have been a very expensive proceeding.
Mr. A. R. Briggs, a Lewes solicitor, well known at Hastings, was examined at great length, during which he said -
I principally managed the election for Messrs. Hanford and Elphinstone. My estimate of the election expenses was £2,500, and to this I was limited at the beginning, Mr. Elphinstone being responsible for £1,000 and Mr. Hanford the remainder. That amount was afterwards greatly increased, and before the election terminated, the candidates agreed an expenditure of £3,500, which I think was positively to be the extreme limit, but when the bills came in, we discovered they amounted to nearly £5,000. The accounts were made up in my office and have never been rendered to the then returned Members. The treasurer to whom the cheques and money were handed was a very leading partisan. I have brought a vast number of papers in consequence of the summons which I received, to show how the money was spent, but I can state from memory what the sums were. The public-house bills were about £2,000. When we found that the writ was about to come down, I gave instructions that no further expenses should be incurred at the public-houses, but when the bills came in, there were charges to nearly £1,000 -
