Testimonies

Henry A. Brassey | Day 21

Witness Type: Candidate / MP

Party: Liberal

Witness Testimony:

• 21229.

  (The Witness) I have received a note from Mr. Baggallay, in which he states that the Commissioners requested I would bring with me all papers and accounts relating to subscriptions and other payments made by me in connexion with Sandwich, Deal, and Walmer since 1874. I have done that. I have a statement prepared for the whole of my expenditure in the borough since January 1875, and I have also prepared a short statement which I should like to read. It is a statement which has nothing to do with my expenditure since 1874; it it has to do with the 1868 and 1874 elections. (Mr. Holl.) According to our impression we have no power to inquire into the elections prior to 1880 ? — It was only a statement I wished to make in contradiction of some evidence given by Mr. Crompton Roberts with regard to my expenditure on that occasion.

• 21232.

  And at that election you were returned together with him without any contest ? — Yes.

• 21234.

  Do the amounts which are returned there represent the whole of the money which was expended on behalf of yourself and Mr. Knatchball-Hugessen at that election ? — In regard to this statement for Sandwich I think I sent my agent, Mr. Emmerson, instead of a cheque for £364 2s. 5d, a cheque for £378.

• 21235.

  What was the difference in respect of — can you remember ? — I think I sent a cheque for £378, and the difference is explained in this way in a letter from Mr. Emmerson, which says, “You sent in a cheque for £378 16s 2d to discharge the expenses mentioned in the statement, namely, £364 2s 2d,” (which is the amount) “and the balance, 14 guineas, was to remain in my hands to meet any general expenses,” not “election, that might come along.”

• 21236.

  Then you, in point of fact, sent him, in payment of the account rendered, £364 ,a cheque for £378 ? — Yes, £378 16s 2d.

• 21237.

  And left the balance in his hands for the purpose of meeting any general expenses that might come along ? — Yes, that is the explanation.

• 21238.

  I do not know whether you are aware how that balance of 14 guineas was really spent or not ? — I have no knowledge whatever.

• 21239.

  You left that in his hands for expenses not election expenses ? — Yes, entirely.

• 21240.

  Then with regard to the Deal and Walmer account, does that represent the whole of the amount for expenses in respect of Deal and Walmer in that election ? — No, I think I spent £360 12s 4d; I think that was the amount.

• 21241.

  The amount of the returned expenses is how much ? — £199 17s 2d.

• 21242.

  And you sent to Mr. Edwards a cheque for £360 12s 4d ? — Yes.

• 21243.

  In respect of what was the difference between £199 and £360 spent ? — I see that in this account Mr. Edwards only charges £100 for agency, and he omitted apparently to put down a second hundred that he thought he was entitled to in respect of agency, I believe, and previous services — 1874 to 1880 I believe that is.

• 21244.

  Had Mr. Edwards intimated to you that he thought he was entitled or had a claim to £100 in addition to the £100 mentioned in the expenses ? — I do not recollect his ever mentioning the subject to me, but apparently he thought he was entitled to the same agency as Mr. Emmerson, and he omitted to make an entry of that amount in the list which he returned. I see Mr. Emmerson puts down £200 for agency, whereas Mr. Edwards only puts down £100, and it appears he thought he was entitled to the same amount as Mr. Emmerson though he failed to enter it in his return.

• 21245.

  Mr. Emmerson had charged in the returned expenses £200 as his agency fee, had he ? — Yes.

• 21246.

  Each candidate £100 ? — Yes.

• 21247.

  And Mr. Edwards, in the returned expenses, is put down for £100 only ? — Yes.

• 21248.

  Had Mr. Edwards intimated to you in any way or conveyed to you in any way his opinion or desire or impression that he ought to have £200 ? — I do not recollect his ever mentioning the subject to me in any way.

• 21249.

  From what was it you derived the impression or idea that he thought he ought to have £200 instead of £100 ? — I thought he was entitled to the same amount as Mr. Emmerson.

• 21250.

  Did the view that he was entitled to the same amount as Mr. Emmerson, as far as you can remember, emanate from him or from you ? — I think from him.

• 21251.

  Do you remember how that impression or idea that he had that impression was conveyed to you ? — I wrote a short time ago to Mr. Edwards, expecting to have to appear before the Commissioners, for an explanation, and he states this: “If any question is asked as to the difference in the amount returned by Mr. Emmerson, of Sandwich, as agent, £200, and the amount returned by Mr. Edwards of Deal, as agent, £100, the same sum of £200 was paid to Mr. Edwards as to Mr. Emmerson, but Mr. Edwards only returned as agency for the 1880 election £100, and considered the other £100 as for agent’s services from election 1874 to election 1880.

• 21252.

  What I do not quite gather is this: Had Mr. Edwards made any request to you for payment in respect of the agency services from 1874 to 1880 on any occasion, or said that he thought he ought to have an agency fee equivalent to that which Mr. Emmerson had received ? — I have no recollection of it.

• 21253.

  Had he made any request of that kind to you which induced you to give him the additional £100 ? — No, I thought it seemed a very reasonable thing that he should have it. (Mr. Emmerson) Might I say one word, sir, not with a view of helping Mr. Brassey, but only to save you trouble if I can ? (Mr. Holl.) What is it you wish to say ? (Mr. Emmerson.) That Mr. Edwards on a former occasion received £100 from each candidate, just in the same way as I had done, and therefore it was supposed that on this occasion it would be the same. I did not confer with Mr. Edwards as to the amount I should charge in the return of Sandwich, but I put it in as a matter of course as the amount I expected to receive, but Mr. Edwards omitted to do so. I believe it was more an omission than anything else, but it was fully understood it should be the same as on former occasions.

• 21254.

  (Mr. Holl.) As matter of fact, had Mr. Edwards on previous occasions always received £200 ? — I think so to the best of my knowledge. I think Mr. Edwards just sent me a memorandum stating generally, not specifically, what the amount would be.

• 21255.

  Can you remember whether, or not, you received any communication, either directly or indirectly from Mr. Edwards, intimating to you that there had been any omission in inserting 100 guineas instead of 200, or any intimation he considered he was fairly entitled to 200 guineas instead of 100 as an equivalent fee to that which Mr. Emmerson received for his services as agent? Was it in consequence of any intimation from him or of your own motion that you paid him the second £100 ? — He simply sent me a sort of general statement of what the expenses amounted to, and I sent him a cheque down and the other day I wrote and asked him for a more detailed explanation.

• 21256.

  In the general statement he sent you of what the expenses amounted to, did he enter his fee as 100 guineas or 200 guineas ? — I think he entered it as 100 guineas.

• 21257.

  I want, as far as I can, to ascertain from you whether you can tell how it was that you sent him 200 guineas instead of 100. Was it in consequence of any intimation you received from him that he thought he ought to have that sum or your own idea? — He just sent me a sort of general memorandum of what the election expenses amounted to, and I then sent a cheque without making any further inquiry about it.

• 21258.

  Was it your own view that he ought to receive the same as Mr. Emmerson ? — Certainly; I can see no reason for making any difference at all.

• 21259.

  Then adding that £100 to the £199 would make the amount payable to Mr. Edwards £299 odd ? — Yes.

• 21260.

  I see you sent a cheque for £360 12s 4d ; can you tell us what the difference between the £299 17s 2d and the £360 12s 4d was in respect of ? — It appears to be accounted for thus: The sum of £60 16s 2d was received by Mr. Edwards to pay for the expenses of Mr. Hugessen’s farewell address; a small hotel account at the Star and Garter, in May 1880, and to satisfy claims in Mr. Edward’s discretion of the newspapers, telegram, Mercury, and Chronicle from 1874 to 1880 being for articles, reports, and papers of which no account has been rendered. Mr. Edwards has not paid any of the newspapers in respect of these matters.

• 21261.

  Have you any account whatever of the items making up this £60 16s 2d ? — I have not.