Testimonies

Spofforth, Samuel | Day 2

Witness Type: Other

Party: Conservative

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 1

Witness Testimony:

• 734.

  (Mr. Jeune.) Mr. Crompton Roberts thought, did he not, of standing at the general election ? — Yes.

• 735.

  You went down to ascertain what his chance would be if he stood again ? — I sent my clerk Simmons down.

• 736.

  And you came to the conclusion that Sir Julian Goldsmid and Mr. Brassey were too firmly established in the seats to be shaken ? — Having regard to the lateness of the sending down.

• 737.

  Mr. Crompton Roberts was given to understand, then, I think that if there should be a vacancy by Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen being made a peer, he should hear of it, and that he should have a chance of standing ? — Yes.

• 738.

  Upon the 27th March you received a letter, I think, from Mr. Usher upon the subject ? — Yes.

• 739.

  Have you got the letter ? — I should say I have got it, it may be amongst my general letters.

• 740.

  It was received upon the 27th March, upon the next day you went down with Mr. Roberts to Deal ? — My clerk Simmons did.

• 741.

  And there they met Dr. Hulke, Mr. Usher, Mr. Spiers, Dr. Mason, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Edward Cloke ? — I believe so from my clerk’s statement.

• 742.

  At that time you understood that it was not settled finally that Mr. Crompton Roberts was to stand ? — It was not.

• 743.

  But upon the 4th May he received a telegram asking him to go down to Deal as a candidate, and he went down that day and issued his address ? — Yes.

• 744.

  That was how his candidature came about ? — Yes, I am not sure whether he went down upon the 4th or 5th, but it was on a Tuesday I know. I am pretty certain he went down upon the 4th.

• 745.

  I will now pass on to the time of the petition, can you tell me when you were first — I will not say retained, — but when you first began to be engaged in connexion with the petition, was it directly after the petition was presented ? — Yes, immediately.

• 746.

  Did you go down yourself to look into the case personally ? — Yes.

• 747.

  Directly ? — No, not directly, within a week. I stated in my evidence, yesterday, I think, that I was down three or four times, but I really believe it was only twice.

• 748.

  Was Mr. Simmons down here with you ? — No.

• 749.

  I do not know whether you are able to give me what day these particulars were delivered by Messrs. Lewis and Lewis ? — I cannot remember, and I doubt whether there is any record.

• 750.

  The judges’ order would show, of course, when they ought to have been delivered. I should rather like to get at the day when the particulars were given to you — perhaps this will fix it “The Petitioners are at present unable to give any further names,” and so on, and then it is dated 23rd July 1880 ? — It might have been that day or the day after.

• 751.

  It would be about that time ? — We obtained 10 days further time I think, so when they were originally delivered I do not know.

• 752.

  Summonses were taken out for further time, but I take it the date 23rd July 1880 does show about the date when the particulars came into your hands ? — Yes.

• 753.

  After that you were down here looking into the matter, and to the truth of these charges ? — Yes.

• 754.

  Who was helping you at the time, was Mr. Simmonds down here with you ? — No.

• 755.

  You were down here by yourself ? — Yes, entirely by myself.

• 756.

  Therefore it was you who verified and looked into the particulars, and proceeded to test them, and to see how far the charges were likely to be made out ? — Yes.

• 757.

  This brief, I suppose, was drawn by you ? — Yes.

• 758.

  I see this, “There can be no doubt that bribery did extensively prevail, but the respondent denied that it was with his knowledge and consent,” the conclusion you came to upon your investigation was, I suppose, that bribery did extensively prevail ? — Yes, I was under that impression.

• 759.

  These particulars were gone through by you and these marks in red ink are your marks, I suppose ? — Yes.

• 760.

  They are the same marks that are referred to in the brief ? — Yes.

• 761.

  I see this sentence occurs, “The particulars to accompany this brief have a red tick opposite the register number which indicates that money is believed to have been paid to the voter named.” Are those (pointing) the red ticks to which you refer ? — Yes, from that point downwards, I think.

• 762.

  Then I find this sentence, “It must be admitted that certain men, against whose names red marks appear in the particulars were paid sums of money by John James Ralph, number 221 in the particulars in the presence of Elliott.” I do not quite know which red marks those would be ? — I do not think I can give the special names unless the names are given in the brief.

• 763.

  I want to know what red marks those are. I find this, “It must be admitted that certain men against whose names red marks appear in the particulars were paid sums of money by John James Ralph in the presence of Elliot,” what red marks are those. I have called your attention to ticks, but what red marks are those ? — I have no doubt the red marks mean the ticks.