Hughes, Edwin | Day 19
Witness Type: Briber, Petition witness
Party: Conservative
Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 20
Witness Testimony:
- 19748.
Can you say when it was that the cheque for £354 was drawn ? — Upon the 14th.
- 19749.
So that you had made provision then to the extent of £354 for money being sent down for this purpose in addition to the £1400 ? — Not for that particular purpose, but to have enough in hand.
- 19750.
Why do you send a cheque up to London to get cashed and have the proceeds sent down in gold? Was it to have money in hand to distribute amongst the voters ? — Yes, if necessary.
- 19751.
In addition to the £1400 that you had provided, you provided £354 in gold for the purpose. As early as the 14th you had made provision for £354 in addition to the £1400 being sent down in gold ? — Yes. That £354 was not necessarily for that particular purpose; it was merely to increase the balance in hand for general purposes.
- 19752.
What is the date of the cheque to Johnson, £150 ? — The 17th, upon the Monday.
- 19753.
And I suppose the second cheque for £175 would be upon the Monday ? — Yes.
- 19754.
I take it all those cheques, except the one sent up to Johnson, would be upon the Monday ? — I daresay it is so. Although that was sent up upon the 14th it would not come down till the Sunday.
- 19755.
Can you give any information at all how the £850 was distributed beyond the names that Mr. Olds has given us ? — I think the list that I have given you includes the names of others than those given to you by Mr. Olds. I think you will find quite sufficient to account for the difference.
- 19756.
I do not know whether you can now give us the names of those persons included in your list which are not in Mr. Olds’ list ? — I do not know Mr. Olds’ list. You have had it in evidence that there were 41 or 42 paid canvassers, and the list which I have given you of the men who had bringing-up lists amounts to 29, so that there would be a deficiency of 13 or 13, and I remember now that when it came to be a question not only of bringing the voters up, but of distributing the £3 to them, some of the bringing-up parties gave their lists to others so that they would have two lists, and that would account for the reduction from the 42 down to the 29, the 29 being probably engaged in paying.
- 19757.
Some of the 42 you mean handed over their lists to others ? — Yes, it was a consolidation of lists.
- 19758.
(Mr. Turner.) They did not like to have anything to do with paying ? — No. There was a sort of understanding, as you want something more done than bringing-up, you had better take my list, as you propose to do this you had better take my list as well as your own. My impression is that 29 includes all the people that distributed money, and it may include one or two that did not . I think that Olds did it honestly, and I do not think that he stuck to any.
- 19759.
(Mr. Holl.) Possibly I was below the mark when I said that he had only accounted for 1700L. because after that estimate had been given several other persons were called who received money from him, but I do not think that at present it amounts to anything like 2500L. Though it may come up to 2000L. ? — I think it is very goos to arrive at it so near as that upon an inquiry of this kind.
- 19760.
(Mr. Turner.) You think that Mr. Olds would know, or ought to know what became of the rest ? — No, I do not think he does know. I have given you 29 names, and if you take from those 29 the names of those given by Mr. Olds, I think, if the residue were called as witnesses it would fully account, if it be necessary to do it, for the 500L. unaccounted for. My list of 29 strikes me as being in excess of Olds’ list, and that, I think, will make the difference.
- 19761.
Besides the two 500L. that you have mentioned, which were paid into the Deal bank , and besides the 500L. payable to Mr. Hoare and the 600L. payable to Mr. Hoare , and the 1,400L., what other cheques did you receive ? — Two separate 1,000L. and two separate 500L.
- 19762.
Exclusive of the 2,500L. you received 4,000L. ? — Yes .
- 19763.
Out of that 4,000L. I see the returned expenses amount to 3,153L. ? —Yes .
- 19764.
That amount was paid out of the 4,000L . ? — Yes , certainly. If we took any money out of the first 500L. cash we replaced it .
- 19765.
So that that would come out of the 4,000L . ? — Yes, clearly.
- 19766.
In point of fact, in addition to the 3,153L., which is the amount of the returned expenses, 600L. of the money which went to Olds did come out of the 4,000L. ? —The 600L. that was paid to the Bank of England was not paid out until after the petition .
- 19767.
No , but a sum equivalent to that was taken from the Deal bank ? -Yes .
- 19768.
Therefore that came out of the 4,000L. ? — Yes , but then it made the other 600L. in the Bank of England belonging to the 4,000L.
- 19769.
Do you know when Mr. Crompton Roberts first learnt that the £1400 had been drawn in the way you have mentioned to us ? — No.
- 19770.
Mr. Roberts stated the other day that he was surprised to hear you say upon the hearing of the petition that he had only furnished you with £4000. When did he first know that you had paid the £6500 ? — He knew of everything except the £1400. That is the only sum he might not know of.
- 19771.
The £500 that he first made payable to Hoare you never had ? — No, that was kept separate.
- 19772.
Mr. Roberts in reality having advanced you £6500 never inquired as to how the large proportion of it had been expended ? — No, he never inquired during the election, and while the petition was on we never talked about it for obvious reasons. He did not want to know, and I did not want to tell. I did not want to affect him with knowledge about it, because it was my duty to protect my client as much as I could.
- 19773.
(Mr. Jeune.) One of the witnesses, a man called Smithers, mentioned that he was offered money by a man named Tucker who put up at the Seaport Arms; who was he ? — A day canvasser.
- 19774.
A Deal man ? — Yes, I know him quite well.
- 19775.
This Mr. Smithers, I forgot whether he came from Deal or Sandwich, said he did not know who Tucker was ? — Tucker was a man paid by me, and I heard that he had been promising people that they should have some money for their votes, and he gave the names of 32 whom he had promised, but I repudiated it, and I told Tucker that he had no authority to do anything of the kind, and from that time to the end of the election Tucker was not employed any more. He was not a man fit to negotiate a matter of that kind if it was wanted. Tucker had no bringing-up list, he was merely a day canvasser, and he got talking, and saying there would be money, and raising a lot of expectation which was very foolish. People have come since the election and said that Tucker had promised them, and my answer has been that Tucker had nothing to do with it.
- 19776.
Then we called before us a man who appears to be the only bill-poster at Deal, a man of the name of Bent. You made an arrangement that you were to have half of the posting stations and the other party the other half ? — Yes. I wanted the whole, and that is the difference between Bent and me. I wanted the whole, and Bent’s answer to me was that he would not let me have the whole, and I said as I was down first why should I not have the whole, and his reply was, “What are the other people to do,” and I said, “That has nothing to do with me; as I was down first I must have the whole.” But he would not let me have the whole and in consequence of that I engaged extra public-houses for posting bills because I wanted to have a preponderance.
- 19777.
Afterwards you made an arrangement with him for the half ? — Yes. I was obliged to put up with half because he would not let me have more.