Crompton-Roberts, Charles Henry | Day 20

In 1880, he stood as the Conservative candidate in the by-election against the Liberal candidate, Sir Julian Goldsmid, and won the election by 1145 votes to 705.

He and his household stayed in Stanley House, Beach Street during the election. His horses were stabled at the Royal Hotel.

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/image-share/a7c7c33a-7d94-4103-98dc-b39d1b68c804

Witness Type: Candidate / MP

Party: Conservative

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 16 | Day 17

Witness Testimony:

  • 20167.

    Recalled and further examined.

    (Mr. Jeune.) You had your coachman down at Deal ? — Yes.

  • 20168.

    I see that you paid to him for going to Deal £10, and £15 upon leaving Deal; those of course would be expenses for himself, and horses and carriages and so on, but besides that I see, “Coachman’s book, £5 1s 5d,” also a charge at the Royal, £6 19s for stabling and keep. Your horses were all kept at the Royal ? — They were stables belonging to the Royal.

  • 20169.

    And your carriages were there also ? — Yes.

  • 20170.

    That £6 19s was for your horses and carriages during that time ? — I have no doubt of it.

  • 20171.

    Beside that I see two sums of £15 each which you gave to your coachman. “In Deal” is the way in which it is entered. What were those sums given to him for; one was upon the 6th May, “Coachman in Deal, £15” and then again upon the 16th May I see, “Coachman in Deal, £15” making £30 altogether; what were those sums given to him for ? — I am sorry that you did not ask me to bring the book because, no doubt, his book would show every penny of it.

  • 20172.

    Beyond the amount of the coachman’s book there are these two sums of £15 paid to “Coachman in Deal.” — I did not pay them myself at all, but I have no doubt that he has been paid that sum.

  • 20173.

    You went through this list yourself, did you not ? — It must be borne in mind that I had a coachman, a groom, and two helpers down there, and I forget whether six or seven horses, or it may have been eight.

  • 20174.

    We have got their stabling and keep, and we have got your coachman’s book showing all the small items, and we have got the sums paid to him for going to and leaving Deal, but beyond that there are these two sums of £15 paid to him on two days, “In Deal” ? — If you told me you wished to have the particulars of this I would have brought a full statement. The coachman is outside, and, perhaps, you would like to see him.

  • 20175.

    (Mr. Holl.) Does he include his wages, or the wages of the men in the coachman’s book ? — Yes, every single payment is included; payments for brushes, sponges, and beeswax, and everything goes down into the coachman’s book.

  • 20176.

    What I meant was this, no doubt such items as those would be included in the coachman’s book, but does he include his wages ? — Yes; and when at Deal, besides the wages, there is the coachman’s keep, and his men’s keep.

  • 20177.

    (Mr. Jeune.) I called your attention before to your canvass book, and to the entry opposite George Lock’s name; there is a note there which you read to me as “Railway agent,” be good enough to read it again, is it “Railway agent?”— It looks like it.

  • 20178.

    Do you think it is ”Railway agent?” — Yes, I suppose it is “Railway agent, very favourable now.”

  • 20179.

    Did anybody tell you that Mr. Lock was a railway agent ? — I do not know. I put him down just at the moment like that.

  • 20180.

    As a matter of fact Mr. Lock is not a railway agent at all, or anything of the kind. — I do not know what he is.

  • 20181.

    Look at that word again and see whether you do not think it is “Bribery agent,” because it looks to me very like it ? — It may be a “B.”

  • 20182.

    Mr. Lock was not as you know a railway agent, and I daresay you have read sufficient of the evidence in this case to know that he was what might he described as a bribery agent on a tolerably large scale. — I am sorry to say I cannot carry these people’s names in my head, and I was not aware that he had anything to do with bribery. I have not read any evidence that would couple this man with bribery; and indeed, when I do read the evidence I do not know whether they belong to the Liberal side or the Conservative side.

  • 20183.

    Do you think that those words might be “Bribery agent?” — Now you suggest it I might take that view of it.

  • 20184.

    Can you suggest how you came to write ”Bribery agent” opposite his name, if the word is “bribery?” — I cannot admit that it is ”bribery,” because I have no recollection of it whatever. I have a recollection of writing the word “gent,” and that is all I have a recollection about it.

  • 20185.

    Supposing the word to be “bribery,” cannot you give me any reason how you came to write “Bribery agent” opposite his name ? — No, not at all.

  • 20186.

    Looking at it now, do you not think that the word is “bribery” ? — I should not have put that construction upon it, and I have no recollection at all of any circumstance which would induce me to write such a word.

  • 20187.

    The word looks very much like “bribery,” does it not ? — Now that you call my attention to it it might be that, but there is nothing at all in my mind that would induce me to take that view of it.

  • 20188.

    Opposite Mr. Lock’s name in Mr. Cloke’s book I find the words “At work.” Do you know how those words came to be written ? — I have never had any conversation with Mr. Cloke with regard to these people at Sandwich in any way.

  • 20189.

    Mr. Cloke had your book to make up his own from ? — That book was brought to me by the person who went round, and he took it to whoever sent him of an evening after I had been roused.

  • 20190.

    You do not know what the meaning of those words “At work” is as compared with the entry of “Bribery agent” ? — No, I have not the slightest idea.

  • 20219.

    Recalled and further examined. (Mr. Jeune.) Is that list in your handwriting (handing a paper) ? — Yes, this is my handwriting, certainly.

  • 20220.

    What does that big B. mean opposite that man’s name ? — Has this anything to do with Deal ? D. is doubtful, and C. Conservative ; that is what I should read it for.

  • 20221.

    I mean this B. ? — No, it is a D.

  • 20222.

    Surely it is a B. ? — I should read all those to be D’s. ; and if you were to write in the cold weather we had at Deal, I do not think you would write much better.

  • 20223.

    If you say it is a D. well and good ; but I should have said myself decidedly that it was a B. — I had nothing to write upon, and there was a bitter cutting cold wind.

  • 20224.

    If it is a D, you say it stands for “doubtful” ? — Yes, that is what I should read it for now. I was not aware there was such a paper in existence, but it is my writing.