Testimonies

Hughes, Edwin | Day 19

Witness Type: Briber, Petition witness

Party: Conservative

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 20

Witness Testimony:

• 19778.

  I think that is what Bent says , that he was not willing to let you have more than half . I suppose these public-houses were really used as bill stations ? — Yes, all of them were used as bill stations, and they were damaged very considerably, not only by the paste but also by the blue paint which Sir Julian Goldsmid’s supporters were good enough to squirt against the face of the houses, smothering all our red bills, so that really after washing down it sticks to the front of the houses now. I am satisfied that 5L. was not an extravagant sum, considering the use to which the houses were put.

• 19779.

  ( Mr. Turner . ) That was a matter not to be anticipated when the 5L. was agreed upon ? — Certainly I did not know anything about the blue paint till afterwards, and therefore that cannot affect the intention, if there was any intention, to affect the votes, which I repudiate upon my part at any rate . They had bills out long before Sir Julian come down, saying , “Get your war paint ready,” and I asked what it meant , whether they were going to dress themselves up as Ancient Britons , and I was told that it meant that they were going to squirt blue paint for the purpose of smothering our bills, and they supposed we should have to squirt red ; they said the painters would like it immensely , and I said , “We will do better than that , we will try” and keep our voters inside the houses as well as we can. Then there was another matter by which I think it very probable we got a number of votes ; the Liberal party issued poll cards requesting the voters to vote for the first name upon the list , and that happened to be ours , because the double surname Crompton Roberts , beginning with a C., put us first upon the borough paper, whereas they had supposed we should appear as Roberts, and therefore come after “G.” All of the voters could not read, and very likely did not take particular notice of the names, and therefore I have not the slightest doubt that some of them voted for us who intended to vote for the other side. They tried to put it right afterwards with a large black board pointing out the mistake, but I think it was too late, and that it cost them some votes .

• 19780.

  You think the antidote may not have been successful in every case ? — I have no doubt that they counteracted it as much as they could, but I do not think it did them any good.

• 19781.

  With regard to out-voters, did you send a circular to them ? — They were canvassed personally by parties in the place where they lived. We had a list of the agents, and communicated with the agents.

• 19782.

  Did you authorise them to be paid their expenses in case they came to vote for you ? — Yes, after the other side did, and after the Liberal circular, which stated, “It is only an illegal payment.” I put the travelling expenses in my account as a separate item.

• 19783.

  Mr. Crompton Roberts has given us his lists of personal expenditure, which you did not include in the returned account ? — No, I never saw them, and I do not consider domestic expenses are intended to be included in the return.

• 19784.

  Whether right or wrong that was your view of the law ? — Clearly, and I take the same view now. If a man moves his house down to Deal, of course that is personal expenditure I cannot take into account. It would be making me housekeeper for the time his house was there.

• 19785.

  That was the reason why you did not include it ? — Yes. I did not know that he had spent anything. I understood that he was walking about without any money in his pocket, and indeed I did not see how he could spend anything.

• 19786.

  There is a head of personal expenses in the returned accounts ? — Yes, those were subscriptions paid on behalf of Mr. Crompton Roberts.

• 19787.

  As regards the operation of the ballot, do you think it had at first any effect upon the poison and the antidote being administered ? — No, I think not at all. I think it may prevent intimidation, but I do not think it prevents bribery. This is the first experience I have had of bribery at Sandwich, and I daresay it will be the last.

• 19788.

  Do you think that the ballot does give complete secrecy ? — If nobody wants you not to know anything about it, it may be secret, but if anybody wants you to know anything about it you can ascertain how certain persons have voted.

• 19789.

  Is that your experience ? — I have never tried it, but I am satisfied there is a mode of doing it.

• 19790.

  That strikes one certainly as rather curious ? — It could be done in this way, though I do not say it is done. Supposing I have got 850 people that I want to vote for me, and all have got to be paid in order to be sure that they vote for my side; the first man gets his ballot paper in the morning and brings it up to the committee room, and the next man going to poll comes to the committee room first, and the paper that the man first brought out is given to that second voter and marked. He goes in and asks for his paper and goes to the box and does nothing except change the papers, that is to say, he deposits the one in the box which had been previously marked in the committee room and brings out his blank paper, and so on through all the 850.

• 19791.

  In fact by the sacrifice of one vote you can tell how all the others have voted ? — Yes.

• 19792.

  (Mr. Holl.) That could only be done where the voter is a party to it ? — If the voter has got to be paid he will be a party to anything that will enable him to obtain his money.

• 19793.

  You do not mean as regards voters who vote properly that you can ascertain how they have voted ? — No, I mean those who choose to divulge, as a means of proving that they are fulfilling their bribery contract.

• 19794.

  (Mr. Jeune.) Apart from resorting to any means of that sort, do you think the ballot does prevent bribery ? — No, certainly not. I think it rather increases it, because people get paid twice instead of once.

• 19795.

  Of course there is the risk if you pay a man he will not vote for you. After all that is a risk you have to face ? — Yes, that is a risk you have to face certainly, and you would have to face it upon open voting too, if you paid the man before he voted.

• 19796.

  Do you think that the risk that a man after he has been paid will play false has diminished appreciably under the ballot ? — It does not seem like it, and it certainly did not seem like it down at Sandwich. I think it makes bribery worse, because people draw money from both sides instead of one. That has been the experience at Sandwich to a very considerable extent, and, I think, the smaller the constituency the more likely it is that bribery will exist, and the larger it is the less likely upon account of the expense. I do not think with a constituency of 10,000 there would be bribery, but anything below that, with proper organisation might be affected by it.

• 19797.

  I suppose the large constituencies would be open to lavish expenditure of various kinds ? — Yes, certainly, made up of the same elements exactly, that is to say, lavish employment of voters, colourable employment of voters, which is the most dangerous thing I know, because you can get over treating.

• 19798.

  (Mr. Holl.) Even with regard to that in a large constituency it would be less likely to be resorted to ? — No, I do not see why. It is divided into polling districts, and each polling district is worked upon the same principle as a small borough; it is a small borough, in fact, and with efficient organisation, I do not see how it can be prevented, except by prohibition, and I would prohibit it.

• 19799.

  Of course if it be a big constituency, and is well divided, bribery is as possible as in a small one, except in regard to expense ? — Yes, there is no other safety.

• 19800.

  The expense over a large constituency of colourable employment would be so greatly increased as to render it less feasible, would it not ? — It all depends. Some candidates do not care what it costs, whereas other candidates limit the amount. In this case there did not seem to be any limit either way. I was never tied down to anything. I should like the Commissioners to understand fully that although I have conducted 20 or 30 elections, this is the first time where there has been anything so unpleasant. The circumstances were quite exceptional.

• 19801.

  I hope there are not many cases where it has been so bad as here ? — The circumstances were quite exceptional.

• 19802.

  (Mr. Jeune.) I see here is a letter of Mr. Usher’s, dated the 27th of May: “I have not fixed the dinner yet, and I think it will be left until we see you. l am obliged by your vote as to the marked register. I should like to have the full information that is on your promise list. Please let me have a cheque to settle up the outstanding account in the flag department, as I have had one or two calls upon the subject.” What was that “full information” which is scored under ? — As to removals for the purpose of registration.

• 19803.

  It did not refer to the conduct of the election ? — No.

• 19804.

  (Mr. Holl.) Besides the £2500 you have mentioned, and the amounts mentioned in the return expenses, have you expended any money at all ? — No. £6500 is the whole.

• 19805.

  £6500 you received, that is £4000 and £2500. Have you received any other money at all ? — No.

• 19806.

  With regard to expenditure, have you spent any other moneys beyond those mentioned in the return expenses and the £2500 ? — Yes, since the petition I have, out of the £900 drawn from the Bank of England, expended further sums.

• 19807.

  Not at the time of the election ? — No. All that I spent, with the exception of £2500, which I do not consider I spent, is included in the published accounts to a penny.