Crompton-Roberts, Charles Henry | Day 17

In 1880, he stood as the Conservative candidate in the by-election against the Liberal candidate, Sir Julian Goldsmid, and won the election by 1145 votes to 705.

He and his household stayed in Stanley House, Beach Street during the election. His horses were stabled at the Royal Hotel.

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/image-share/a7c7c33a-7d94-4103-98dc-b39d1b68c804

Witness Type: Candidate / MP

Party: Conservative

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 16 | Day 20

Witness Testimony:

  • 18478.

    Have you no other items besides ? — Yes. Since the evidence appeared in the paper showing that you wished these items accounted for, several friends who were down with me have called upon me, or written to me, and stated that was my usual habit, when I fetched them to help me in any way, to pay them liberally their expenses, and to all of them I gave a £5 note or a £10 note. One gentleman (and it is not necessary to mention his name) wrote me a note in which he says, “When at Deal, we went out one evening, you gave me £10, which you took out of your pocket or purse, I forget which, whilst we were in the carriage.” This gentleman went over in a post-chaise and horses for me to Ramsgate to bring a friend to speak for me at one of the meetings. I was very much done up, and he said he had a friend of his, a barrister, at Ramsgate, and he said he would drive over and find him and hunt him up. I had put him to the expense of coming down there, and to some expense in driving over to Ramsgate, and I gave him £10

  • 18479.

    That, I understand, is nobody residing at Deal or Sandwich, nobody connected with the borough ? — No, one of my personal friends who came down upon my summoning him. I summoned all my friends whom I thought would be of any use to me. Almost every other person that came down I treated in the same way, giving them £5 or £10, and I should think I gave £25 at least to my friends who came down in that way. Then I find there was a Foresters’ Charity £5 5s. Sir Julian Goldsmid, you will remember, says that he gave £5 5s.

  • 18480.

    That is not down in the account ? — No. Then there was the entrance and subscription, or footing money, I think they call it, to the Forester’s Charity, which was given to the Widows’ and Orphans’ Fund. Then I told you about my having stood glasses round. They would not let me pay for it that night, and I quite thought if I did pay for it that night £2 or £2 10s would have been sufficient. When I went to the bar and tried to pay for it, they said I must pay for it in the morning, and when I did pay for it in the morning they knocked it up to £10 or £12.

  • 18481.

    You have no account for that, I suppose ? — No.

  • 18482.

    Where was that ? — It was a blue house, but I have no idea of the name. It was a prominent house in Walmer where the lodge is held. Then also my sons came to me, and I gave them a tip each, and paid their travelling expenses. Beyond that also I found that we sent the governess some money, while we were there to come down to us. In all those little matters the money has gone, and it was only when I saw that item of £60 that I was staggered, because I had dismissed it entirely from my mind.

  • 18483.

    I may take it that those are all the items you can furnish us with ? — Yes, and I have gone very carefully through it

  • 18484.

    There is a sum of £33 paid to Captain Roberts. Can you tell us what that was in respect of? I see one sum of £11, and two sums of £10, each paid to Captain Roberts ? — I have not asked him. He was here the other day and could have told you.

  • 18485.

    Do you remember what those sums were handed to him for ? — I have no idea at all.

  • 18486.

    (Mr Jeune) Those sums of £11, £10, and £10, were three sums that you gave to Captain Roberts ? — I do not know at all.

  • 18487.

    Have you no knowledge yourself of what those sums were given to him for ? — Until I had seen that paper that you produced I had no idea that he had had them.

  • 18488.

    Have you no idea at all what the money was given to him for ? — No. As I say until I had seen the paper I had no idea that he had had that money.

  • 18489.

    Did you send this account of your personal expenses to Mr Hughes ? — No.

  • 18490.

    What account of your personal expenses did you ever send to Mr Hughes ? — I never sent any account.

  • 18491.

    You just now said that you knew all expenses had to go through Mr Hughes, your agent ? — Yes.

  • 18492.

    And yet you say you never sent in an account of your personal expenses to him ? — That is a new reading of the Act of Parliament. A man must eat and drink. I had no idea that what a man ate and drank, and what were his ordinary expenses, would have to go through his agent.

  • 18493.

    Did Mr Edwin Hughes ask you for any account of your personal expenses ? — I am not aware of it. I should say he did not. He told me that all expenses of every kind must go through his hands, but I had no idea that my taking a house, or taking horses and carriages there, or anything of that sort, would be expenses that would have to go through him.

  • 18494.

    But you see you returned you say no personal expenses at all to Mr Edwin Hughes ? — Because I spent nothing for the purposes of the election.

  • 18495.

    Did you understand that it was no part of your duty to return any part of your personal expenses to your expenses agent ? — Yes, if none of those expenses were for the purposes of the election.

  • 18496.

    There is no doubt what “personal expenses” mean. They mean expenses which you yourself are put to. Do you mean to say you thought no part of your personal expenses in that sense of the word had to be returned through your election agent ? — My impression was and is that anything spent for the purposes of the election should go through the expenses agent, but not otherwise.

  • 18497.

    Did Mr Hughes ask you for any account of the personal expenses that you yourself had been at ? — I told Mr Hughes that everything should go through his hands.

  • 18498.

    That is not quite an answer to my question. Did Mr Hughes ask you for any account of your personal expenditure ? — No.

  • 18499.

    He did not ? — No. But may I qualify that by saying that I believe he had thorough confidence that I would not spend anything without it did go through him.

  • 18500.

    He must have known that you spent something; there is your railway ticket there and back, and your living during the time. He must have known that you spent a considerable sum in personal expenses ? — I never for a moment dreamt that the Act of Parliament would ask for such a thing as that.

  • 18501.

    Did not Mr Hughes tell you ? — No.

  • 18502.

    Did not Mr Hughes ask you what your own personal expenses of living were during the fortnight you were there ? — No. I was under the impression that the only expenses asked for were those expended for the purposes of the election. A man must live and eat.

  • 18503.

    (Mr Turner) You had a good many friends down to help you in the election, so you may say they were for the purposes of the election ? — I never for a moment dreamt that the Act of Parliament would ask for such a thing as that.

  • 18504.

    (Mr Jeune) Is that your reading of the law, or Mr Hughes’ reading of the law ? — It is my reading.

  • 18505.

    Mr Hughes was your agent, and I want to know whether Mr Hughes ever asked you for any account of your personal expenditure, meaning by that such items as are in this account for living, and so on ? — No, not for living.

  • 18506.

    House-rent, railway fares, carriages, and those sort of things ? — No.

  • 18507.

    He did not, you are sure ? — He did not.