A. No. There are twenty-four aldermen, and the patronage is about 15–24ths on the Tory side to 9–24ths on the Whig side.
Q. Is it your opinion that more urgent cases have been passed by, and others taken on account of political services?
A. I think not; I think very pressing cases have had the preference over political supporters.
Q. Is it, in your opinion, a justification if a person is put into the hospital under such a promise, or a more pressing case; and would the alderman exercising the power, do it under an impression that he was not guilty of any breach of duty, or of violating his moral feelings?
A. I think where an alderman had made such a promise, he would be perfectly justified in performing it, provided the person was a fit and proper object.
Q. The alderman, so promising, in the event of a more pressing case, would he change his turn?
A. It is done frequently for the express purpose in pressing cases; and those changes are made with political opponents.”
Alderman Newton examined, said, “I have no doubt there have been large sums of money expended at local elections. It has been a common thing to make subscriptions for local elections. Sometimes the subscriptions have far exceeded the necessary expenses. In some cases, but not generally, the subscriptions have been under the management of a committee. An individual mostly takes the management. He has the whole of the funds under his care, and is not accountable to anyone. The committee never interfere. It is left to one individual to manage the funds. The mode of distributing the money is known to members of the committees, who are generally members of the corporation. I do not know of aldermen being members of the committees. Aldermen have subscribed, but very rarely, at contested elections. A good deal of money has been expended on those occasions. The general supporters of the parties have been subscribers, including the common council, but not the aldermen. The scenes at elections have been very disgraceful sometimes. I recollect the election of Alderman Marshall. I have heard that the scene on that occasion was very disgraceful. I have heard that much money was spent, but I think £1000 would be the outside. I recollect the election of Alderman Steward. Money was spent on that occasion, but nothing like £1000. I remember the election of Mr. Steward for sheriff. I have heard that money was then spent. I heard that the Whig party gave a large sum for the last six votes that they polled, and I believe it to a certain extent. No doubt there was money spent by the Tory party to a large extent. I have heard that from £10 to £15 were given for a vote. There was a large subscription by members of the council, but not by the aldermen. I think Mr. Steward subscribed, but I do not know to what amount. On other occasions subscriptions have been made for the same office. Money was given to the freemen, but the far greater amount was spent in giving them beer and tobacco on either side. It has been carried to a greater extent by the Gurneys than by any other persons. I have no doubt that the money was given for bribery.”
J. J. Gurney, Esq.; stated that the assertion as to bribery by the Gurneys was utterly false as to him; that he had never given a farthing for the purpose of bribery; nor had the firm done so; nor had they any loans; nor had their clerks been employed for such a purpose; had the deepest impression of the sin, guilt, and misery, involved in our local elections; and he would rather have his arm cut off than promote them directly, or in any way whatsoever. Not only had there been bribery, but a system of demoralization to a fearful extent; but treating was the root of the mischief here. He believed the root of the evil was the election of the magistrates and corporate officers by popular means.
The commissioners asked, What mode of election do you consider would be preferable? and Mr. J. J. Gurney replied:—