Testimonies

Spofforth, Samuel | Day 2

Witness Type: Other

Party: Conservative

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 1

Witness Testimony:

• 854.

  You understood he had given money to other people, though not to the men mentioned below ? — Yes, inferentially.

• 855.

  Then against Walter Dixon Bushell there is written, “No, it was William, of Belmont Place.” That means to say that it was William Bushell, of Belmont, who had bribed these persons, and not Walter Dixon Bushell ? — Yes, that is the inference.

• 856.

  Can you say where you derived that information ? — No, I cannot

• 857.

  Did you see William Bushell ? — I have no remembrance of it.

• 858.

  Do you know where you got that information from ? — No.

• 859.

  Was it from the third person you mentioned ? — No.

• 860.

  It must have been from some one who knew a good deal about it, because the note is in effect, “It was not that Bushell, the real Bushell was William Bushell, of Belmont Place” ? — I do not remember seeing Bushell.

• 861.

  From whom do you think you got the information that it was not Walter Dixon Bushell who had been distributing money but William Bushell ? — I cannot say ; I do not think it was the third person.

• 862.

  Who could it have been if it was not the person himself, and was not the third person. Was it Mr. Olds, do you think ? — I do not remember that it was Mr. Olds, it might have been.

• 863.

  Cannot you recollect who it was pointed out to you that error that they had made a mistake in charging the wrong Bushell; that although a Bushell ought to have been charged, it was the wrong one they had got hold of ? — No, I cannot remember.

• 864.

  How did you make it up. Of course all this was written down at once. I want to know from what notes or memoranda did you make it out. Did you take down notes or memoranda when you saw these various persons ? — I made no notes ; I went through the particulars generally.

• 865.

  I mean, in these particulars we find in red ink the results of a good deal of inquiry and a good deal of information. Did you carry all that inquiry and information in your head, or did you make notes when you saw the various persons, and then compile the red ink observations from the notes ? — No, the particulars were gone through.

• 866.

  Gone through with these various persons ? — No, with the third person.

• 867.

  Then that looks to me as if it was that person you got it from ? — I cannot say, it may have been, I do not remember.

• 868.

  Do you remember whether you wrote these red notes and made the ticks at once ; that is to say, when you went through them with that person, did you write them down then and there, or did you afterwards compile the red observations and the red ticks from other sources ? — I ticked it in the particulars.

• 869.

  You went through with him, and ticked it then and there ? — Yes.

• 870.

  And did you make most of those notes when you were going through it with him ? — Not the marginal notes, but I may have written some of the notes not purely marginal.

• 871.

  You mean by the marginal notes those on the left hand side and the other ones opposite the names ? — Yes.

• 872.

  And most of those notes, written not marginal notes but opposite the names, were written, were they, when you were going through the particulars with this third person ? — Yes, I think so.

• 873.

  Is it not most probable that it was from information from that third person that you wrote down these notes opposite which there was the person whose name ought to have been inserted. Does not that strike you as most probable ? — From my answer it does.

• 874.

  From your recollection do not you think it was that person who gave you that information ; who else could have given it you ? — I cannot say who else could have given it me.

• 875.

  I see here the words “Clear of all this list;” what does that mean ; opposite a good many names here there is written the words — “Clear of this list” ? — It meant so far as I recollect, that parties who were charged here as bribers had not bribed any one of the persons whom they were charged with bribing. The list referred to those numbers which go from 192 to 220. I have a remembrance of that

• 876.

  They had not got the right bribers put against the right people ? — Yes ; that is the meaning of it.

• 877.

  I see all these names are afterwards ticked, so that it meant they had been bribed, but they had not been bribed by the persons whose names are put down as the bribers ; that would be it ? — I do not say they had been bribed, but they voted for the respondent, and probably had been bribed. I did not ask the question, had they been bribed.

• 878.

  Now opposite the name Joseph Henry Redsull, I see written the words “Never did anything.” Was Joseph Henry Redsull, a man you saw yourself ? — I assume, from my having made a memorandum opposite him, he was.

• 879.

  You saw him and he denied it ? — I do not remember him ; but I assume that as I made a memorandum opposite his name I did see him. I wish the Commissioners to understand this, because I forget some things, particularly in witnesses ; they were only in with me two or three minutes. I asked them a question and they retired, so that I do not remember them individually ; they are not impressed upon my memory by name.

• 880.

  That is very natural ; we cannot expect you to remember every single thing everybody told you, that would be absurd ? — Or even the men themselves.

• 881.

  Of course not. There is a man here, Mr. John Lemon Adams, and opposite to that I see you have written, “He himself took money from the Blues ;” and opposite Jack Adams, the next name, I see the words “the same,” with this addition on the other side, “Will give their names if desired.” You saw them, I suppose ? — I think I remember the former Adams, but I do not remember the other one.

• 882.

  But from the fact of the note being there you rather come to the conclusion that you did see them ? — Yes.

• 883.

  And if you saw them, I presume they gave you that information ? — Certainly.