Hughes, Edwin | Day 19
Witness Type: Briber, Petition witness
Party: Conservative
Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 20
Witness Testimony:
- 19298.
(Mr. Holl.) You are a solicitor at Woolwich ? — Yes, Woolwich and London.
- 19299.
And you have, I believe, for many years acted as an election agent ? — Yes. I have written out a statement which appears to me to be short, and I think it would be convenient if you would allow me to read it, with a view of saving time.
- 19300.
Yes, be good enough to read it, and if there be anything afterwards we may wish to ask you, we will do so ? — My statement runs thus:
“I went to Sandwich as agent for the Conservative candidate, and took over absolute control. I speak of the borough by its Parliamentary name, but Deal was the key of the position, and I stayed there. I went on in the usual way by meetings, placards, and engaging public-houses, and when, about the third day, I had time to go about, I was astonished to find the public houses so close together. I never had a more obedient set to deal with than the Conservatives at Sandwich.
I soon made myself acquainted with everything and everybody. I found the Conservatives had contested the place many times, and with one exception for three months, had never been successful. I found the cause of this was wholesale bribery by the Liberals, and nursing the place between elections as well.
I started with the idea that no illegal payments were to be made, and especially that no corrupt practices were to be resorted to. I was told that the other side would not be so particular. I said, “If the Liberals do anything wrong, let me know.”
We obtained 1,400 promises (before Sir Julian Goldsmid appeared) by saying that if we were unsuccessful it was the last time we would ever contest the place, and all the men who wanted payment or promise of payment I marked Liberal, and told the canvassers not to trouble them any more. I reckoned we should poll 10%, less than our promises, that is, net 1,260.
This allowance was made by me for defects in canvass reports, as usual at elections. I sanctioned about 30 poles being put up at first, to amuse the waterside people, and in case the poles might be wanted, and the men acted under William Spears’ orders. And I was obliged to leave it to him, for I should have been hindered in other more important matters.
As soon as Sir Julian came down, his party put up poles and flags by scores. I then told Mr. Usher I could not be bothered about flags and rosettes; if he liked to attend to it he could, as of course the other side could not object to our doing the same as they did, and William Spears had some poles put up. The same day, rumours of bribery and promises by the Liberals came to me with circumstantial evidence more or less reliable.
I was not too ready to believe all I heard, for such rumours I heard were sometimes made to force the hand of the opposite party. But at last there was no room to doubt it. I examined into 20 cases and became acquainted with the whole scope of the bribery by the Liberals, who were there bribers, where and how their money was being distributed, and my scouts gave me overwhelming evidence.
Besides, I had personal interviews with the voters themselves, some of whom deposited the Liberal money with me, so that I came to the conclusion that our promised majority was being undermined by an unscrupulous enemy, and we must retire from the contest, or remain and be beaten as previous Conservatives had been.
There was only one alternative, and that was to administer an antidote, namely, to make a present to those who had promised us, to prevent the Liberal bribe taking effect. In other words, to pay our men to keep their promises.
It was said, as Sir Julian bribes, he will not and cannot complain if we counteract him with his own weapons. I must confess this was specious reasoning, and I had to consider the matter in all its bearings. The law of self-defence was one point. It was very hard to have worked so strenuously for more than a week, and secured the seat, and then to be brought up in this way.
We could have been defeated and petitioned, but then a petitioner becomes so unpopular, and is always looked upon as a tale-bearer. It was my business to deal with facts as they existed. Besides, if the whole affair exploded and the borough became disfranchised, it would be a gain of two Liberal seats to the Conservative party, and it was quite time something decisive was done with such a corrupt Liberal stronghold.
I knew that if our candidate retired he could not even petition, and it would look cowardly to run away, so it was decided to be nominated, and go to the poll.
Now the money for presents to those who had promised Mr. Roberts did not come through my accounts, but the conclusions I have drawn from what then took place, and what has been told me since, is that in self defence money was provided which found its way to Olds; that I do not believe any person had any money for paying those who had previously promised us, except through Olds. The amount he had was probably about the same as Sir Julian provided.
The antidote, as I call it, was no doubt administered to our promisees on the Monday evening the 17th, or on the Tuesday morning before the poll, after they had received money from the Liberals, whose money (£1,500) arrived on the Friday in the week previously, and this accounts for so many receiving money from both sides.
In some few cases the antidote may have been administered before the bane. But I should judge, in nearly all cases the Liberal money was paid first, and, therefore, our payment on Whit Monday and Tuesday may, as to the great bulk of the cases, be considered the antidote to the Liberal payments the previous Friday and Saturday. It must also be remembered that many of Sir Julian’s party advanced sums of money prior to the Friday out of their own pockets on the strength of being repaid.
I was asked by Conservatives as early as Tuesday the 11th whether they should take Liberal money which had been offered to them. I said, “Certainly. It is better for you to have it who will not be influenced, than for somebody else to have it that will be influenced.”
The Liberals tried to buy the Conservatives over, but did not succeed sufficiently to affect the result. The Conservatives did not bribe the Liberals at all, but left them alone, satisfied to hold fast the promises that had already been honestly given.
I gave distinct orders to all our supporters to poll before 1 o’clock and they nearly all did. Liberals applied all day, and especially in the afternoon, to be bribed, but were steadfastly refused. Our organisation was as perfect as I knew how to make it, and we had only 10 men unpolled.
The result of the poll showed that the defensive measures adopted by the Conservatives prevented the Liberal bribes from affecting more than about 100 of our promises, for we polled 1140, being about 120 less than my estimate. What that loss would have been if Liberal bribery had not been counteracted at all may be estimated at quite sufficient to have returned Sir Julian Goldsmid, for 220 shifted from one side to the other would have done it.
Then came the question whether Sir Julian, having fought a duel which was illegal, would take proceedings. He says he made up his mind to petition from the first, but if the £1500 he sent from Rochester on the Friday had secured him the victory, I believe he would have sat as member for Sandwich, because, as he says, “A seat is a seat.” In that case, we should have put up with it, because, as between the parties themselves, it was a stand-up fight, although with illegal weapons.
No idea of giving Sir Julian the seat to abandon the petition has ever been thought of by us. Our sense of injury is too strong. I am more anxious for the future than the past, and I think colourable employment cannot be abolished unless paid canvassers and messengers are restricted to a reasonable number. The consequences arising from illegal payments (which do not avoid the seat, and involve only small penalties) are not sufficiently serious to be deterrent.
Except the seat is claimed no recriminating evidence is allowable. I think therefore that some official like the Queen’s Proctor should intervene where the petitioner is himself suspected.
I annex the original letter from the Liberals to one of the voters offering the illegal payment of travelling expenses from Lee, and I also append particulars of the 20 cases of Liberal bribery which rendered a counter movement or a retreat requisite.
Personally I am very vexed at having gone down to Sandwich at all, or having been cognisant in any way, even on the defensive, with such questionable proceedings, but being in the thick of the fight I was not the man to run away and leave the enemy in possession. The Liberals, who have for years educated the voters at Sandwich to expect payment from them for their votes, are really responsible for all that has ensued. It is the natural result.
I have here a statement that was drawn up at the time of the petition, but which was not used, because there was no recriminatory evidence admitted. It is a proof that I had prepared at the time of the petition, and it states: Mr. Edwin Hughes was agent, he has lodged all his papers with the returning officer ; he, however, produces letter written by Liberals.
‘Liberal Committee, Queen’s Head Inn, Walmer, May 13th, 1880: To B M Bowman, Esq, Leyland Lodge, Leyland Road, Lee, Kent.
Dear Sir, The committee would feel greatly obliged if you will give your interest for Sir Julian Goldsmid, Bart., our Liberal candidate. A railway pass will be sent upon their receiving a favourable reply. Yours truly, E T Rose.’
On this information, and having in view the noted central Liberal circular, Mr. Hughes sanctioned passes outside the borough, or payments for same. Mr. Hughes also proves that the day before the election Alexander Pettet, 3A Cannon Street, Deal (1427), came with W License, Saracen’s Head, to him, and produced a piece of paper like the following:
Mr. Johnson, X X X X °P.61. This he, Pettet, cashed and obtained £1 from the Liberals. He then had another paper from the Liberals marked thus: 1 J. X X X X x. ”
(The ‘1′ means that £1 was paid, and £4 had to come, making a total of £5, and the ‘J’ means Johnson. This man Pettet showed them to me, and left them with me, but afterwards came for them, because he could not get the money without, and when he got the money upon the promissory note he brought it to me.)
“This paper was a promissory note for £4, and showed £1 had been paid. He was to go to William Henry Ramell, No.1475, 10 Napier Terrace, Deal, to meet there at 7 o’clock, and ask for Mr. Johnson. Pettet afterwards got the £4 and deposited it with Mr. Hughes.
James Wratten (1764), 20 Nelson Street, is stated by Mr. W B Mackie, 2 Water Street, to have received £7.
B T May, 1 North Street, reported Liberal arrangement was £2 down, to be paid at Ramell’s, and £3 afterwards.
Arthur Trott (1677), of 85A Beach Street, is reported to have been offered £8 by the Liberals; so says Mackie, 2 Water Street.
Thomas Marsh (1273), 1 Bridge Row, but removed to Dawson Street, told me he received £4 from Liberals. Frederick Wakeman (1695), 132 High Street, Deal, was offered bribe by Liberals; told Tucker and Moon so.
William Brown (1854), High Street, Walmer, is said to have received £4 from Charles Cox, at King’s the hairdresser’s.
Edward Hougham (1150), 13 Grove Terrace, Gladstone Road, also received £4 from Charles Cox, at King’s the hairdresser’s.
Thomas Cribben, junior (857), Beach Street, North End, re-received a bribe at a quarter to nine the day before the election from James McArthur Chittenden (805), 181 Beach Street.
Caspell was bribed by brother to the brewer.
Liberal bribes in Walmer were distributed by Edward Thomas Rose (204), Strand, Walmer, and William Trigg (2084), Strand, Walmer. Henry Roberts (1522), 150 Middle Street, is supposed to have been bribed, John William Cavell (788), 32 Beach Street, Deal, moved to Farrier Street, bribed by £4, so Myhill, 6 Wellington Road, states.
Walter Dunn (920), 5 High Street, Deal, had £3, also Harry Bailey (649), 15 Jews Harp Alley, received £3 from Warner, the pilot.
These cases were reported to Dr Hulke, Dr Mason, and Mr. Ommaney, and Mr. Denne, junior, and the money in Dunn’s case deposited with me. ”
Then follow some observations very similar to those I have read in my statement today, and these are cases the bulk of which I think you tumbled across at Deal, but they could not be mentioned upon the hearing of the petition, because recriminatory evidence was not allowed.
- 19301.
(Mr. Holl.) I think you went down upon the 4th ? — Upon Wednesday, the 5th.
- 19302.
Had you been personally introduced to Mr. Crompton Roberts prior to the hour you met him there ? — No, I met him down there when I arrived.
- 19303.
Who were the leading men of the Conservative party that you met when you went down ? — Hulke, Mason, and Nethersole were three of the chief leaders, and very respectable gentlemen indeed, holding high positions; and also I met others holding a different position, such as Henry Spears, Myhill, Olds, Porter, and Ralph, all of whom I think you have heard.
- 19304.
Did you consult with them as to what steps you should take, or did you take your own course ? — I heard what they had to say, and took my own course; of course I was influenced by what they had said.
- 19305.
I mean as to the course of proceeding to be adopted by you ? — I went down as an expert knowing all about it, that is to say, about the conduct of elections. Therefore, although, of course, I heard what they had to say, I took my own course, though, as was natural, I was influenced by what they said.
- 19306.
Can you tell us very shortly what they suggested as to the mode of procedure ? — They left entirely to me the course of procedure, and only made statements to me as to what generally took place at Deal, and what sort of people they were. Of course I wanted to know all about that.
- 19307.
Tell us shortly what they told you as to what generally took place at Deal ? — Of course, I arranged to have committee meetings every morning at eleven o’clock, and a few to meet together in the evening to talk over the results of the day, and I gradually got my organization up to a pretty good pitch of perfection. They told me from day to day what was going on, what the other side were doing, and what chances the other side had of getting a candidate. The first thing I enquired about was the bill sticking.
- 19308.
Did they give you any information as to what usually took place at Deal ? — About the third or fourth day suddenly they said that if the other side obtained a candidate they would spend a lot of money illegally.
- 19309.
l am speaking of when you first went down ? — Do you mean the same night?
- 19310.
Yes, or the next day ? — I cannot separate the first night from the second day.
- 19311.
You have stated that they have told you what was generally the mode of procedure, and what sort of people they were. What did they say to you as to the usual mode of proceeding at Deal ? — They told me people would expect to be paid for their votes, and I said they would not get any money from our side. They said that the Liberals would pay them if I did not, and I said that I would not.
- 19312.
What did they say as to what sort of people they were; do you mean that they told you that they would require to be paid ? — That they had been in the habit of being paid by the Liberals. I must make that exception. It was never suggested for a moment that either Major Hughes Hallett, or Baron Henry de Worms, or anybody on the Conservative side, had paid for any votes, and it was perfectly clear that they had lost because the other side had paid for votes. That was what was stated to be the reason of their failure.
- 19313.
They told you that the people were in the habit of being paid by the Liberal side, but not by the Conservative side ? — That is so.
- 19314.
From whom did you learn that ? — I could not say, I am sure.
- 19315.
Cannot you give me the name of anyone ? — No, I do not know that I can; Olds told me that certainly.
- 19316.
Did they suggest that you should make an exception to what had been the general course of proceeding upon the Conservative side, and that you should bribe ? — They suggested that I should make an exception to my original course of proceeding, and told me that I was evidently a good man for a large borough, but did not understand the place.
- 19317.
What did you understand they suggested to you to do ? — To spend more money than had been ever spent at any election with which I had anything to do, because I never spent any money illegally.
- 19318.
In what way did you understand they suggested you should spend it ? — In the first place in flags, poles, and rosettes, which were all right 30 or 40 years ago, but which are illegal now, and I said I would not have any till the other side started it.
- 19319.
Who suggested it to you ? — About the flags and rosettes, do you mean ?
- 19320.
Yes ? — I think it was amongst the boatmen that the suggestion came about the flags, because they wanted a job.
- 19321.
I understood you to say that it was suggested to you that it would be necessary for you to pay the people for their votes ? — They said that the Liberals would do it, and if I did not do it we should lose.
- 19322.
I understood you to say that they told you if you did not do it the Liberals would ? —They said the Liberals would do it in any event.
- 19323.
I think I am correct in saying that just now you told me that they said if you did not bribe the Liberals would ? — No, I did not say that; they told me that the Liberals always bribed, and would again.
- 19324.
They told you that the people would expect to be paid, and if you did not do it the Liberals would ? — It amounts to that, though I did not put it in those words. I do not see the difference; they told me that the Liberals would pay their voters, and if we did not pay ours the Liberals would get in as they had done before.
- 19325.
Did you understand that it was a suggestion that you should pay the voters ? — Yes, it was suggested over and over again and I resisted it firmly.
- 19326.
You say, as I understand you, that they told you the Conservatives never bribed before, and they were suggesting that you should make an exception to the usual custom ? — They suggested it as a mode by which the Liberals ought to be met, but I did not agree with it, and I threatened to go back home several times.
- 19327.
I suppose when you got down there you took certain steps ? — Yes, I attended the billsticker first.