Spofforth, Samuel | Day 2

Had nothing to do with any money during the election. (born 1824 in Yorkshire) living in Kensington, London in 1881

Witness Type: Other

Party: Conservative

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 1

Witness Testimony:

  • 884.

    Now opposite this name, for example, William D. Lane, I see the word “Elliot” ? — That means I think he is one of the men whom “Elliot” dealt with.

  • 885.

    And I see you put it in your brief to show how recklessly the case is got up. There are two men charged with bribery. No. 221, John Lemon Adams and Jack Adams, father and son, they will both swear that neither of them were ever paid a penny to vote, and they can both further swear, if required, that they received money to vote for the petitioner, and will give the name of the person who paid them ? — Well, I really did not remember that.

  • 886.

    But that was probably the result, as far as you can recollect, of your interviews with these two persons ? — Undoubtedly, as I stated before.

  • 887.

    Now, here is a charge with regard to William Burwell Mackie, he is put down as having bribed George Williams, with a payment of 3L, part payment of 5L for his vote. I see opposite that is the word “Mackie” written, what does that mean ? — That I cannot explain. Mackie is the man charged, do you see.

  • 888.

    Does that mean that Mackie had in fact bribed him ? — I am not prepared to say that.

  • 889.

    Now take another one where the name is different ; there is Thomas James Usher, who is charged with having bribed Stephen Huxstep, and opposite to that IS written the word “Wray ;” what does that mean ? — I cannot say. I do not remember.

  • 890.

    Does it mean it was at Wray’s house, or that Wray was the person who had really bribed him ? — Wray is the man charged with bribery, I suppose, but I really cannot say.

  • 891.

    There is no Wray on the register that I can find; it IS spelt W-r-a-y, and I cannot find any Wray on the register. Do you know who Wray was ? — I do not.

  • 892.

    Now take the next one. Wise ; in the same way, opposite Thomas James Usher, there is the word “Wise ;” it is put opposite “These men work for the corporation, Mr. Usher being the borough surveyor ; they have charged him, he denies the charge most positively ;” do not those words mean that, though Usher had not given the money to those persons, Wray and Wise had ? — I do not remember that it does mean that. It is a reasonable inference, I admit.

  • 893.

    Reading that sentence in the same way as the other words, is it not the case that those words are put in as a correction to show what the real fact about the particular charge was. Is not that so ; that is a reasonable inference to draw from those words, is it not ? — I admit it is.

  • 894.

    I see in these particulars there are some charges made of this description ; for instance, “Giving an order for a number of fireworks, in value about 40L., which order was to induce them to vote for the respondent ;” that is one of the charges made, and the person said to have been bribed is Charles William Frost, and the person bribing is Hughes, and against that you have written, “Nethersole gave this order; they were never used or paid for.” Was that information derived from Mr. Nethersole ? — I will not say I derived it from Mr. Nethersole, but I derived it probably from some other person who informed me of it.

  • 895.

    With regard to the next one, I see Edwin Hughes is said to have given an order for goods to Mr. Samuel Loyns, and below that is written, “Order given by Marley, to whom Usher gave cheque for 39L. 14s, 2d.” Who is Marley ? — I forgot who Marley is, unless he is a tradesman here.

  • 896.

    You see what it is, “Order given by Marley to whom Usher gave cheque for 39L. 14s. 2d.”

  • 897.

    Do you recollect who gave you that information ? — Most probably Usher. I will not swear, but most probably it was Usher. I was in constant communication with Usher on this matter.

  • 898.

    I daresay Mr. Usher can tell us about that. Then there is lOL for the Wesleyan Chapel, which I think does not matter. Then there is this — Edwin Hughes is charged with having given a large order, about 500L. for flags, bunting &c. to William Pittock. Opposite that I see is written, “Hughes gave this order.” Then further is written “Rosettes and calico and ribbons from Usher, 39L. 10s. 6d. never entered in his book.” Do you remember what that means ? — I think the information from which I made that entry is –

  • 899.

    From Usher probably ? — From Usher probably.

  • 900.

    In the same way I see there is another entry, “Usher gave cheque for colours and calico for flags, 13L 17s. 9d.” I suppose that probably would be information derived from Usher ? — Yes.

  • 901.

    In the same way with regard to this one “Usher gave this order for flags and colours together, 6L. 15s. ; flags 5L. 15s., and rosettes 1L.” That again would be information from, Usher I suppose ? — Very probably.

  • 902.

    Then I see there is a charge made against Edwin Hughes, William Frost Spears and George Edward Porter, of having given colourable employment to Thomas Baker in putting up poles. Opposite that you have written “Spears, W. F., gave this,. and had the money from Hughes.” I presume you mean it was Spears who gave that order, and that he received the money to pay for it from Hughes ? — Yes.

  • 903.

    That I suppose was information you obtained ? — Yes, I think from Spears.

  • 904.

    I see you have here “W. F. Spears paid for all,” that is with reference to the poles. I suppose W. F. Spears told you he had paid for all those ? — I think so.

  • 905.

    With regard to the charge made of taking the pier there is this, “Hughes says he paid 15L. for the pier for the sake of popularity, and charged it as personal expenses.” That I suppose was information which Mr. Hughes gave you ? — He did.

  • 906.

    Then “Wise.” There is a person called James Wise, is there not ? — Yes.

  • 907.

    And he is a voter, I see, residing at Victoria Villa, Deal. You saw James Wise, did you not ? — I saw him with Elliott.

  • 908.

    Is it possible he may have given you the information which led you to put down the word “Wise” in that place I called your attention to just now ? — Possibly, but I think not. I do not think from what I remember of my interview with Wise that I did put that down from that — in fact, I am sure I did not.

  • 909.

    Is there a draft proof of Dr. Hulke’s among these papers ? — I don’t remember a draft proof. I think there is some evidence given by him in the brief.

  • 910.

    There is a regular drawn proof in the brief ? — If I remember rightly, I think it was sent up to London. There it is (showing the same to the Commissioners).

  • 911.

    What paper is that (handing a paper to the witness). Is that in your handwriting ? — Yes.

  • 912.

    That looks to me like a rough draft of the various persons, or some of them, charged with bribery or being bribed, and notes of yours opposite their names. Is that so ? — It is.

  • 913.

    I see it begins, “List of alleged bribees,” is the word I think ? — “Bribers,” I think.