Olds, Samuel | Day 3

In total Olds received £2,500, purely for bribing Publicans and voters.
He secured and paid for committee rooms in 88 public houses – 71 in Deal & Walmer, according to testimony by Daniel George Frederick Simmons, plus 17 in Sandwich. Each was paid £5 a-piece. Well over the odds when their annual rent was on average £12.

In November 1881 he was found guilty and sentenced to six months hard labour. Released in May 1882.

Witness Type: Briber, Councillor / Alderman, No Indemnity

Party: Conservative

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 2 | Day 14

Witness Testimony:

  • 2174.

    Did you hear from these parties — Worrels, Barnes, Bushell, and the other names you have given me — that they had distributed this money ? — Yes.

  • 2175.

    You heard it from each of them ? — Yes.

  • 2176.

    That they had paid it over according to the purpose for which it was given to them ? — Yes, certainly ; I believe they did, but I could not say for certain.

  • 2177.

    Did they tell you so ? — Yes, they told me so.

  • 2178.

    They told you that they had done it ? — Yes.

  • 2179.

    I may take it there is no doubt, is there, that the first thing you did was to secure a number of PUBLIC-HOUSES in the place; you thought naturally that the public-house interest was a very important one ? — The facts are simply these. The Conservatives contested the seat a great many times, and always failed, or nearly always ; they seemed rather down about contesting it, but when Mr. Hugessen left, he being very popular for many years both with the Liberals and Conservatives — he being elevated to the peerage — there came an open question, and it was said, “ We have got a stranger coming in,” and then the Conservatives showed up in their true colours. My object was, which has been no doubt theirs always, to go round first and secure a great many PUBLIC-HOUSES ; indeed, I believe if the other side had them all, you would not have heard anything about it. Our party has generally been behind, and we have allowed them to do it.

  • 2180.

    Generally speaking they get the start of you, and you thought they should not do it this time ? — We had nearly a week’s start of them, and we might have had nearly all the houses.

  • 2181.

    You did have pretty nearly all ? — A great many more would have come if we wanted them. The result was, with a week’s start, Mr. Roberts had fairly got three parts of the promises of the voters before Mr. Goldsmid came down, and when he come down he really had not a shadow of a chance. I believe, if Mr. Roberts had not spent a shilling, that the popularity he was held in would have carried him through without spending a shilling, whilst the other might have spent his money ; that was the difference between the two ; it did not matter where you went, as soon as they saw Mr. Roberts they were willing to vote for him.

  • 2182.

    You mean as soon as they saw Mr. Roberts, and found that he would take 60 or 60 PUBLIC-HOUSES, they were willing to vote for him. I understand you to say that you considered, and the leaders of your party considered it of great importance to secure the public-house interest ? — It is important in many ways. With regard to the bill posting, the literature put upon the walls is pulled down and covered up with other BILLS, whereas in the windows there is no difficulty in hanging the BILLS, and you can send the boys and. they can replace the BILLS two or three times a day if you feel inclined. Many of the voters living in the outlying districts perhaps do not attend any meetings, but they see the BILLS at night when they come in and have a quiet pint, and they can read the BILLS much better that when they are posted in the streets. In the windows they are not subject to be covered or to be torn up and made use of.

  • 2183.

    Besides that, there is always a coterie in the habit of attending each of the houses, or most of them ? — Yes, no doubt they all expect to make a little out of the election.

  • 2184.

    If you have a great many houses, the landlord of the house is naturally anxious to help your side if he can ? — Not in all cases. When I engaged those houses I had no parliamentary list with me, and I did not know who was a voter and who was not. I merely went down and took the houses in rotation.

  • 2185.

    Most of them would be voters, as householders ? — Not all of them, because some would only have been there a very short time. However, I did not ask who had votes, and whether they were Liberal or Conservative ; and they were at liberty to vote which side they thought proper.

  • 2186.

    You thought probably that if you took his house and your colours were up, you would get his vote, and that the people attending his house would be likely to vote for you ? — Many of those of whom we hired houses voted against us, and many of them let a room to the other party, because I did not bind them all not to do that.

  • 2187.

    Was it not the fact that one object of taking a number of houses was that yon. secure, to a certain extent the interest of the house and of the people who are in the habit of attending it ? — It is on account of the show a great deal. Passers by see the BILLS up in a number of windows, and that may be an inducement to the people outside to say, “It looks rather red out here, ” and I shall go with it,” or, ” It looks rather blue, and I shall go with it.”

  • 2188.

    (Mr. Jeune. ) It looks like the winning side ? — Yes, and there are many who like to vote the winning side ; but I think a quieter election there could not possibly be. There was not one case of drunkenness, and no treating.

  • 2189.

    (Mr. Holl.) You know of no treating ? — No ; no treating whatever.

  • 2190.

    Have you told us all the money that you have received ? — I believe it is all

  • 2191.

    You say “believe ”? — Why I say I believe is because I cannot say exactly how much was in the bag. I never counted it. There might have been more, but I guessed about a thousand pounds ; but I took some and paid it away directly, and never had an opportunity of counting it.

  • 2192.

    May there have been 1,200L., or 1,500L. ? — There may have been more than 1,000L., but I never counted the money. I never had a chance to count it. It was all gone in a couple of hours.

  • 2193.

    You have told us you kept an account at the time of what you paid away ? — Yes, but I never added it up.

  • 2194.

    Although you have destroyed the account, and therefore have not got the details, surely you know what the sum total was within 50L. Was it as much as 1500L ? — I never had an opportunity of counting it ; before I had got rid of one, another was in.

  • 2195.

    You told us you did keep a memorandum of what you paid away ? — Yes.

  • 2196.

    And therefore you had all the sums down in writing ? — Yes, but I destroyed it the day after the election.

  • 2197.

    That would prevent your knowing the detail of how much you gave exactly to each, but still you would know whether the whole of that which you put down amounted to 1,200L. or 1,500L. Did it come to 1,500L ? — I did not go through it, but it might have done. I cannot say the amount.

  • 2198.

    (Mr. Turner.) Why did you say l,O00L ? — I said about 1,000L.

  • 2199.

    (Mr. Holl.) Might it have been as much as 1,600L. ? — I should think not

  • 2200.

    You would not undertake positively to say it was not as much as 1,500L. ? — I should think not I should say 1,300L.

  • 2201.

    Did the dark man tell you how much it was ? — No. I put it at a guess 1,000L.

  • 2202.

    And you say now it might be 1,500L ? — l should think not, but I cannot positively say. It might be 1,200L. or 1,300L.

  • 2203.

    Do you really say you do not know whether it was 1,000L. or 1,300L. ? — No ; I did not count it