Testimonies

Spofforth, Samuel | Day 2

Witness Type: Other

Party: Conservative

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 1

Witness Testimony:

• 794.

  Did you yourself verify any of that information, did you see any of these people ? — No, I did not.

• 795.

  In no case did you see any of the alleged bribers, or alleged bribees personally, and find out whether the story was true ? — I think I saw some of the alleged bribers, but I cannot say which.

• 796.

  Could you by looking at the particulars tell me ? I do not think I could with the exception of Ralph.

• 797.

  You saw Ralph personally ? — Yes.

• 798.

  Ralph told you what sum of money he had had ? — No, he did not tell me what sum of money he had had, and I never asked.

• 799.

  Of course he told you he had had money ? — He did not tell me in words, but he did inferentially. I never asked him.

• 800.

  Did he tell you what persons he had given money to ? — No, he did not.

• 801.

  He is charged with having bribed certain persons here, I supposed you asked him whether in fact it was true, and whether a case could be made out in regard to those persons ? — I cannot say that I asked him in reference to any particular names, but names were given in my presence, which led me to suppose that the charge might be sustained.

• 802.

  I suppose those names, or some of them, at any rate, were the names of persons charged in these particulars ? — Yes, some of them.

• 803.

  Did Ralph tell you in detail which of the charges could be proved, and which of the charge could not ? — No, I think not I may say he did not.

• 804.

  Did he tell you that any of the charges could not be proved ? — I do not remember that he did.

• 805.

  He knew, of course, what persons he was accused of having bribed ? — He did, you may assume.

• 806.

  And he did not tell you that in any of those cases the charge was a groundless one, and could be disproved ? — I could not remember that he did.

• 807.

  With regard to the public-houses that appear in the particulars as having been engaged, I see you have a note opposite them that Mr. Olds engaged all the houses, and you state the way in which he did so. I suppose you had communication with Mr. Olds upon the subject, and he gave you the information himself ? — ; No, the communication was from the same source.

• 808.

  You mean the third person that you have mentioned ? — Yes.

• 809.

  He told you what Mr. Olds had in fact done, and you wrote it down here ? — Yes.

• 810.

  Was Ralph the only person charged with having bribed who you saw personally ? — Yes, so far as I remember.

• 811.

  Perhaps if you take the particulars you can think of some more (handing the particulars to the witness) ? — Yes, I had interviews with Mr. Spears.

• 812.

  (Mr. Holl. ) Is that William Frost Spears ? — Yes. I forget whether I saw William Spears. I saw John Lemon Adams, and Valentine Myhill. I also saw George Phillpot, Ralph, Elliott, John Lemon Adams, and Jack Adams. I am not quite sure of Jack Adams, but as there is a memorandum opposite his name I may have seen him, but I do not call him to mind. Then with regard to Thomas Phillips there is a memorandum opposite the name, but I do not remember him. I saw George Hooper, and William Lock. Then there is Betts ; I do not remember him and I think the information was given to me. I do not think I saw him.

• 813.

  (Mr. Jeune.) I have the original particulars here, and I cannot from them make out the meaning of the sentence I read to you just now, to this effect, “All the persons charged as bribers it is believed were entrusted with money, but only in three cases are the names of the bribers and bribees coupled in the particulars” ? — I cannot give any further answer. I do not know.

• 814.

  It follows from that that all the bribers were entrusted [with money, but only in three cases are the names of the bribers and the bribees coupled. One would understand from it that all had money, but only in three cases were the bribers and bribees rightly charged ? — No doubt that is the fair inference, but I cannot call to mind whether or not that was the meaning of it.

• 815.

  I was asking you about the persons bribed that you saw. Of course you saw them to ascertain whether or no the charges in the particulars were likely to be made out; that was your object in seeing them, of course ? — Yes.

• 816.

  May I take it that all they gave you to understand was that what was shown by the red marks in the particulars was substantially true ; that is to say, where there was a tick there had been an act of bribery ? — No, not so far as that ; I only learned from them that money had been entrusted to them.

• 817.

  They gave you in every case to understand that they had had money entrusted to them ? — I think I may say almost in every case where the opposite does not appear in the note.

• 818.

  I presume where you thought you had gone far enough, and they told you they had had money entrusted to them, you understood perfectly that the money had been spent in an illegitimate way ? — That was the natural understanding.

• 819.

  Did they tell you who had entrusted them with that money ? — No.

• 820.

  Did you ask them ? — No, I did not ask them.

• 821.

  We have dealt with the persons bribing, now we will take the persons bribed, did you see any of them ? — No.

• 822.

  Not a single one ? — Not in any individual instance, and I never asked to see them.

• 824.

  And you did not send any one to enquire of them ? — No.