Hughes, Edwin | Day 20
Witness Type: Briber, Petition witness
Party: Conservative
Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 19
Witness Testimony:
- 20316.
(Mr. Jeune.) What are these lists ? (handing some cards to the witness.) — These are for my own private use at the election, stating the results of the canvass, and every other information which I thought available and useful for the election was all posted on to these lists, and these lists never went out of my possession.
- 20317.
(Mr. Holl.) These are in fact lists of all the voters for the borough upon which you posted your remarks ? — Yes, I posted everything. From these lists I can tell everything that I ought or ought not to know in reference to the election.
- 20318.
Do these lists show the 850 voters who were to be paid ? — Very nearly; they have numbers opposite to them, and those numbers indicate the number by which the committee man was known which is explained by an index which I have here (referring to another card). The 80 committee men are all numbered upon this sheet, because it was inconvenient to write upon a printed polling list the names of the committee men, there not being room, and therefore I represented it by a number, that is to say, those who had bringing up lists originally.
- 20319.
(Mr. Jeune.) I see No. 67 opposite the first name ? — Yes, and that would mean, “Barnes, Cambridge Arms.”
- 20320.
What does “D” mean ? — Doubtful.
- 20321.
And what does it mean after the name ? — That is a registration mark, that he has ceased to be a voter this year since the election.
- 20322.
The number opposite the name indicates the committee man who brought him up ? — Yes, and in consequence of its afterwards being determined to pay £3 each the same committee man was entrusted with the money to distribute to that particular voter, and therefore there is not a single voter but what you can get at. Those who have no numbers at all I should say certainly and most undoubtedly were not paid by our side.
- 20323.
All those with numbers opposite to them you think are persons who it was intended should have £3 ? — Yes.
- 20324.
And who had it ? — Yes, I feel satisfied they had it.
- 20325.
How many do they come to ? — I do not know, but very nearly 850.
- 20326.
By comparing these lists with the witness called before us we should be able to ascertain who were bribed ? — Yes, undoubtedly.
- 20327.
We have only to compare this list with the witnesses we have called ? — Yes. The object of this is that no voter should be paid twice, because that is a very common error made by a good many people. There was one man who drew money twice, named Port, and he got it by a misrepresentation; that was upon the day of the election, and it was found out immediately.
- 20328.
(Mr. Turner.) He would have to go to the committee man, and the committee man would know him again, and not pay him ? — Yes. Then here are plenty of other marks which I can explain; where the number is marked through it shows that they have voted before one o’clock, and where the number is marked through in blue it shows that they voted after one o’clock.
- 20329.
(Mr. Jeune.) Those who have got no number were people who could be trusted to come up without being paid, or who voted for the other side ? — Yes; all those where the number is not marked through did not vote at all, and you see the bulk of those are Liberals. You will see there is a man named Ralph, with l. s. d. against his name. He wanted money, and you see I left him alone, I took no notice of him. Then there is a man named Wakeham upon this list, and it was reported to me by a stupid fellow named Tucker, that he wanted a payment, and it was said that somebody of the name of Moon could get his vote for a sovereign, which I made a note of, and, notwithstanding that, I did not have anything to do with him.
- 20330.
(Mr. Holl.) Those that are marked l. s. d., are very few ? — I do not think there is any other. I want to point out in reference to Wakeham, against whose name Mr. Crompton Roberts made a note “Wants a bribe,” the same thing was reported to me, and I want to show that notwithstanding it was reported to me that his vote was available for a bribe, still, not having given his promise previously, I would not have anything to do with him.
- 20331.
That occurs only in one or two instances ? — It shows the principle; and there was a very good reason for it, because we had already got enough.
- 20332.
(Mr. Jeune.) What does a red cross mean ? — “Did not vote,” I think.
- 20333.
(Mr. Holl.) Then there is a note, “Dead,” and again, “In Canterbury gaol ” ? — Yes; the red cross means that they did not vote, and the reasons are given. Then there is a round “O” in each of the first columns, and that is a promise to remain neutral, but they did not all keep that.
- 20334.
There is a round “O” against a man named Harrison ? — Yes ; he promised to remain neutral, but did not.
- 20335.
(Mr. Jeune.) When a name is written after the voter’s name, what does that mean? For instance: “Chapman,” and then again, “Mackay” ? — Some few had the names put in before I put the numbers. I found it was so inconvenient to write the name that I made the index I have before alluded to. When I have written the name in any case it is the name of the person to whom the voters had promised, or who was likely to influence the voter.
- 20336.
In fact it is the same thing as the number ? — Scarcely so much as the number, because the number was an actual promise. Where the name Chapman is written against a voter’s name it represents that the man had not promised any way, and Chapman was the man supposed to have most influence with him.
- 20337.
What does “James Nethersole” mean ? — He is the one who would influence the voter, but there is no red ink number, and therefore no money was paid in that case. There are committee men on my list numbered, but you will not find any number in reference to them, and the reason of that is because they would not take the responsibility of paying any money, or bringing any voters up. They did what they could and when they had reported to me they considered they had done with it. I should say three-fourths of them would not have anything to do with any payment; they are not all bad. You may understand by this system how it was I knew all about everybody.
- 20338.
The organisation was perfect ? — I had only 10 days to do it in; and five or six days put it all straight. I worked eighteen hours a day.
- 20339.
The work upon those lists no doubt was something enormous ? — That is the very reason why I wanted so many canvassers. I could not do it all in so short a time without having an extra staff. [Adjourned. ]