Testimonies

Emmerson, Richard Joynes | Day 2

Witness Type: Briber, Freeman, Treater

Party: Liberal

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 1 | Day 14

Witness Testimony:

• 961.

  (Mr. Holl.) We have a few more questions to ask you ? — You asked me yesterday to produce the first letter I received from Sir Julian Goldsmid. I will hand in that letter, and also the reply which I made to that communication (handing in the same to the Commissioners).

• 962.

  Have you any further correspondence ? — I received a second letter from Sir Julian Goldsmid which was on the occasion when Sir John Adye came down here. I telegraphed to him then that Sir John Adye was on his way. He then wrote me tins letter by that night’s post (handing the same to the Commissioners),

• 963.

  Was there any further correspondence ? — No, none whatever. I also hand in two letters, or rather copies of two letters, which I wrote to Lewis and Lewis in reply to the letters I handed in yesterday (handing same to the Commissioners).

• 964.

  Now with regard to the seven houses which were engaged at 4L each. Did you engage them ? — Yes, they were engaged by Mr. Coleman with my knowledge.

• 965.

  With your knowledge and by your direction ? — Yes, he told me the circumstances, and I said they must be engaged.

• 966.

  I see that in this letter, in which you acknowledge the receipt of Lewis and Lewis’ cheque for 350L. on account of expenses, you say nothing about the 200 sovereigns you had received ? — No, I do not.

• 967.

  How was it that in writing to them, acknowledging the receipt of that cheque, you said nothing about the receipt of that money ? — He did not refer to it, and I did not answer it.

• 968.

  Having received 450L. the amount that you sent in amounted only to 593L, when he forwarded you a cheque for 350L. ? — There were other claims which I mentioned to you yesterday which were claims alleged to be due, and sums that had been promised, amounting to something like 200L. or 300L., We had received no account whatever. It was supposed they were sums that were promised to voters to keep them.

• 969.

  How do you know it was 200L. or 300L., ? – Simply because Mr. Coleman told me so. In fact I did the best I could, and got the amount of it the best way I could, simply vivd voce.

• 970.

  Did he say the persons to whom they were promised ? — He did not. I presume some were expectations and some actual promises.

• 971.

  Did he give you a list of those persons ? — No, but he will give you the list. He says he can furnish a list of those.

• 972.

  I understand you to say the reason that you mentioned nothing about this 200L in gold was because of the 50L, you had paid to Coleman to distribute among different voters to secure their votes, and that there were other sums he told you he had promised to other parties but not paid ? — Yes ; that was really the case.

• 973.

  I see here you say, “The particulars of the ‘Bell Hotel’ accounts, 48L. 17s., 3d. were sent in upon the 4th of June. They were called personal expenses to prevent their passing through the agent for election expenses.”. They are called in the return ‘personal expenses ?’ — Yes, they are called personal expenses.

• 974.

  When you say they were called personal expenses to prevent them passing through the agent for election expenses, you knew that those expenses were what I may call illegitimate — illegal expenses ? — I don’t consider them illegitimate; they were not really illegitimate.

• 975.

  Why should you call them personal expenses, to prevent their passing through the agent for election expenses P-I simply wished to make the account as simple as possible.

• 976.

  That is not the reason you gave. You say, “I called them personal expenses to prevent their passing through the agent for election expenses.” Why should you wish to prevent their passing through him if they were legitimate ? — Well, they were rather large certainly.

• 977.

  Was not the real fact that you knew that these were not legitimate expenses, and that therefore they were expenses which it would be dangerous to pass through the election agent’s hands ? — I cannot admit that, for I do not think they were illegitimate at all. There was a great deal of expense incurred for the staff, — and so on.

• 978.

  How can you explain the fact that you say you called them personal expenses to prevent their passing through the agent for election expenses ? Why should you do that if they were legitimate expenses ? — Well, I furnished him with the account. I wanted to show exactly what they were.

• 979.

  I am not saying what you furnished to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, but why should you call them personal expenses to prevent their going through the agent for election expenses ? I see you go on to say, “The greater part was incurred on the day of the election” ? — The largest part of this was for a dinner we had after the election, in fact, to the staff itself. No portion of these expenses were for meat and drink given to voters for the purpose of corrupting and influencing their votes. It was, in fact, expense incurred by the staff engaged that day, and friends of Sir Julian coming in from a distance, and so on, who went in and had refreshments.

• 980.

  Now with regard to the claims that have been made upon you, have we before us every claim that has been made upon you ? — Yes.

• 981.

  In writing ? — Yes.

• 982.

  Are there any other claims whatever that have been made upon you, other than those you mentioned which Coleman will give us the details of ? — No, I mentioned them all yesterday to you.

• 983.

  Are you aware of any other corrupt practices or illegal payments whatsoever beyond those which you have told us ? — No, I am not aware of any. I don’t recollect any.

• 984.

  I am excepting, of course, those you told us. The 50L you say you gave to Coleman to pay away to different voters, and the sums you intended to pay to Coleman in respect of the promises he had made to other persons ? — Certainly.

• 985.

  Beyond that, you are not aware of any other corrupt practices or illegal expenses ? — No.

• 986.

  Now there was a list of watchers which you were going to hand in to us ? — A list of watchers is contained in the vouchers of the account handed in, and has been published ; but yesterday you wished me to analyse them, to ascertain how many of those were voters and how many non-voters. You will &id that information at the bottom (handing in a paper to the Commissioners),

• 987.

  I see there were 12 voters and 4 non-voters ? — Yes.

• 988.

  I think they were paid a pound a-piece ? — Yes.

• 989.

  That was for watching on the night before the election ? — Yes.

• 990.

  In what sort of position are these 12 who are voters; what class of men are they; Ford, Quested, Grey, Gambrill, Easter, Revel, Stokes, Spicer, Cook, Bailey, White, and Booth ? — Ford is a bricklayer.