Foord, John Ross | Day 18

Eldest brother of Thomas Hellyer Foord of Rochester. Detailed family history can be found on Medway Memories. Paid expenses for Julian Goldsmid through his family firm John Foord & Sons. He had known Julian Goldsmid for 10 years during which time Sir Julian had been the MP for Rochester. Testified that many of the expenses paid out on Sir Julian’s behalf related to the Rochester Election.

Witness Type: Other

Party: Liberal

Witness Testimony:

  • 19103.

    In election years they would be greater than at other times ? — Yes, in some years party expenses would be a moderate amount, and in other years much heavier, making it on an average £180.

  • 19104.

    What would be the largest amount you paid in one year for party expenses ? — I must decline to answer that question decidedly for Rochester. I have stated, if I am put to it, I am willing to answer every question relating to Rochester matters, and to account for every farthing I have received from Sir Julian Goldsmid.

  • 19105.

    As at present advised, I do not propose to ask you to go into any detail in respect of the expenditure connected with Rochester elections ; but I think it is not beyond the province of this Commission to ask what is about the amount you have been in the habit of spending for Sir Julian Goldsmid in connexion with the elections ? — £1800 in the 10 years is what has been expended ; some years it comes to nothing, and some years it would be a very considerable amount.

  • 19106.

    How many elections would the 10 years cover ? — Parliamentary elections ?

  • 19107.

    Yes ? — Sir Julian came after Serjeant Kinglake’s death.

  • 19108.

    (Mr. Jeune.) Was Sir Julian Goldsmid elected in 1868 ? — I think later than that.

  • 19109.

    Sir Julian Goldsmid came in upon a bye-election, did he ? — My father died in 1868, and Mr Serjeant Kinglake was alive then, so it must have been after 1868.

  • 19110.

    There were three elections: one in 1870, another in 1874, and the election in 1880 ? — Yes.

  • 19111.

    (Mr. Holl.) I think you ought to tell us what, about, is the largest amount that has been paid in any one year. Has it ever amounted to as much as £800, £900, or £1000 ? — I said “party matters”, and it does not only refer to parliamentary matters, because we have a great many municipal fights, and in all those expenses the members assist us.

  • 19112.

    The £1800 includes municipal matters ? — Yes.

  • 19113.

    Taking it in round numbers, how much would be applicable to municipal matters, and how much to parliamentary elections ? — It is not quite half, I should think, but rather more than a third it would be for municipal matters and general fighting, as you might term it. We consider keeping up the party’s position, and if our opponents want to fight we are on to them.

  • 19114.

    I may take it that £1000 or £1100 would be applicable to what are called parliamentary elections ? — Yes.

  • 19115.

    In round numbers, how much would be applicable to the election of 1870, how much to the election of 1874, and how much to the election of 1880 ? — About £700 I should think, to the election of 1880, £300 to the election of 1874, and £100 to the election of 1870.

  • 19116.

    Do I understand that that is all you have expended on behalf of Sir Julian Goldsmid in connexion with those elections ? — The amount I have stated is all I have expended.

  • 19117.

    Does that include Mr Otway’s expenses ? — A portion, but to a very moderate extent.

  • 19118.

    It would be mainly applicable from what you say to Sir Julian Goldsmid’s expenditure ? — Yes, there were certain expenses that Sir Julian Goldsmid had to pay a rather larger share of than Mr Otway.

  • 19119.

    Is that all that you have expended on behalf of Sir Julian Goldsmid in connexion with these elections ? — Yes, I will swear it is. I will swear that the amount I have stated to you is all.

  • 19120.

    All that you have expended, directly or indirectly, upon his behalf ? — Yes, upon his behalf. Of course I am not speaking to a few pounds.

  • 19121.

    We do not understand you to be speaking to the exact figure, but only to the best of your knowledge and belief in round numbers ? — Yes, that is for the whole of the time.

  • 19122.

    That is as I understand in substance all that you have expended on his behalf, directly or indirectly, in connexion with these elections ? — Yes, at Rochester.

  • 19123.

    I presume you have been repaid those amounts by Sir Julian Goldsmid ? — Yes. I may say I paid it, and when it suited Sir Julian Goldsmid to pay me he has paid me, and that is the course I adopted with Mr Martin and Mr Serjeant Kinglake. They knew that I paid, and when it suited them to repay they repaid.

  • 19124.

    Sometimes you had payments on account ? — No, never on account. They never paid me a farthing till they owed me hundreds.

  • 19125.

    And then they paid it all ? — No, they paid it as it suited them. The account I will suppose began in July, and perhaps at Christmastime they might pay a portion of what I paid, but not beforehand. When you pay “on account” I take that to mean paying beforehand, and I would never allow that sort of thing, because if I am a man’s friend I will be his friend.

  • 19126.

    I meant “on account” in the other sense ? — I misunderstood you. They paid me when it suited them.

  • 19127.

    I understand you to say you had payments in the interval ? — Yes.

  • 19128.

    Those are all the payments I understand that you made on behalf of Sir Julian Goldsmid, directly or indirectly, in connexion with those elections ? — Yes.

  • 19129.

    The amounts that you have mentioned to us exhaust all the transactions that you had with Sir Julian Goldsmid during that period ? — Yes.

  • 19130.

    You have no doubt about that ? — No.

  • 19131.

    I do not mean the precise amounts, but those are substantially all the amounts that you expended in his behalf ? — It comes to £5600. When I saw Sir Julian Goldsmid had stated that we paid large sums of money for him I roughly took it out, and it amounted to £4960 up to a certain period, and then there was £700 paid after that.

  • 19132.

    During the 10 years there would be £1700 paid in respect of subscriptions, £1500 paid in respect of registration expenses, and £1800 in respect of party expenses ? — Yes, and you must take the £600 in proportion. £170 a year for subscriptions, £150 for registration expenses, and £180 for party purposes; that makes £5,000, but practically it is £600 more, and you must take that in a relative proportion in dealing with the £170, £150, and £180. You might take it at £20 a year more each, or perhaps the better way would be not to alter the subscriptions or registration expenses but add it all on to party expenses.