Crompton-Roberts, Charles Henry | Day 16

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 17 | Day 20

Witness Testimony:

  • 18297.

    What is folio 41 ? — That is the house account, and I will bring the house account next time if you like.

  • 18298.

    That is a separate book ? — Yes.

  • 18299.

    Now, folio 146; what is that ? — That is “Extra payments continued,” and there is a heading here: “Sandwich election.”

  • 18300.

    What would seem to appear under the head of ” Sandwich election” ? — May 8th. To Sandwich election: Hughes, £500; ditto, May 15th, £500; May 18th, £1000; May 19th, £1000; May 29th, £500; June 3rd, £500.

  • 18301.

    Those were the cheques given by you to Mr Hughes ? — Yes.

  • 18302.

    (Mr. Holl.) That does not include the £600 cheque ? — No, that has gone as if it were a debt to Mr Hoare.

  • 18303.

    That has been posted to Mr Hoare, it being drawn in his name ? — Yes. There is a memorandum here, “Query 5 per cent,” and that means whether he was to pay 5 per cent, upon it.

  • 18304.

    (Mr. Jeune.) Was it upon Mr Hughes’ suggestion that you gave him cheques drawn to your partner and not drawn to Mr Hughes ? — No.

  • 18305.

    That was your own doing ? — Yes, so that my partner might see that there was £600 in the bank. I wanted to go up to London to see the state of the banking account, and the cheque was made payable to my partner, with the view of his going himself to put my account right if there was not money enough.

  • 18306.

    With regard to the pencil order which you gave on your partner to Mr Hughes, was that a suggestion of Mr Hughes to you ? — Yes.

  • 18307.

    Did he give you a reason why you should give him an unlimited order ? — My impression was that Mr Hughes thought that I ought to have been able to give him more than £600. It is quite possible he may have asked for £1000. My impression was that he thought I ought to have been able to give him more than £600, and I told him that I thought that was all I had at the bank.

  • 18308.

    Did Mr Hughes say nothing else besides that ? — He said, “Should I require any more, your partner will find the funds,” or something of that sort.

  • 18309.

    Did Mr Hughes tell you how much he intended to get from your partner by means of this pencil note of yours ? — I did not know that he intended to get any.

  • 18310.

    He would hardly have asked for a note, and you would hardly have given it, if there was no intention to use it ? — “Should I want more” was the expression he used.

  • 18311.

    Did you make no enquiry as to how much more he would probably want ? — No. My impression was when he had the £1000 a day or two afterwards that he had not had any. At all events, I had no idea that he had.

  • 18312.

    It strikes me as a little odd, having given an unlimited order a day or two before, that you should afterwards give a cheque for £1000. Why could he not have got the £500 and the £1000 from your partner, you having given an unlimited order ? — Because I had heard that my account was in order. If there was not plenty at the current account there was plenty at the deposit account.

  • 18313.

    Did you not ask Mr Hughes whether he had made any use of the order you had given him ? — No; it did not strike me, because I did not suppose that he had.

  • 18314.

    You say that you found out that he had drawn the £1400 about six weeks afterwards ? — I do not think I knew of it till the next drawing of all the partners for the profits.

  • 18315.

    I will not follow this at the moment, because we have agreed that you shall come again. You canvassed yourself, personally. Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich ? — Yes.

  • 18316.

    We have your canvassing book for Sandwich. Have you got a similar canvassing book for Deal and Walmer ? — No; they had not got anything ready, and I used bits of paper and envelopes. Sandwich was the only place where they were ready in that respect.

  • 18317.

    You had bits of paper upon which you wrote the same notes as you did in the canvassing book for Sandwich ? — Yes. It was rather an expensive plan, but the notes were made chiefly on envelopes.

  • 18318.

    As fast as you wrote upon those envelopes you handed them over to the person engaged in managing those matters ? — Somebody met me at an appointed place. Suppose I left off at one point at night, I met whoever was to go with me at an appointed place the following day, and, as regards Deal and Walmer, I had envelopes or pieces of paper. I requested the people to sort them in the order I should take them, but I found they could not do it, and I had to make the best arrangement I could, and as fast as I called upon the people I took an envelope from here and put it into this pocket, and at the expiration of the day I emptied my pocket of the envelopes, with the remarks I had made upon them.

  • 18319.

    And those you handed over to the man who went witii you ? — Yes, who took them to Mr Hughes, or the committee, or whoever sent him with me. I should be obliged if you will allow me to mention this: somebody has told me, and, unfortunately, I have not seen all the papers containing the evidence, that a remark has been made about my brother, and by this pass book you will see that a £100 cheque is drawn in his favour. My object in troubling you now is that it so happens that he is in the room, and if you want to ask him any questions you can. After I got home from the election I found screwed up in one of my pockets these accounts of how he had spent the £100 (producing papers). For instance, we have here the Black Horse Hotel bill where I had some friends staying, and he was good enough to pay that bill for me. The bill was made out to the amount of £20 9s, but my brother being paymaster and thoroughly understanding the proper prices, had that bill reduced by £414s, therefore making the payment to the hotel £15 15s. Then, at the Queen’s Hotel, I had some other friends staying, because my house was too small to take them all in, and the bill was made out for £34 13s 6d. He told me he considered the amount very high, indeed, and out of regard to my pocket he made the landlord content with £28. Then I had some friends staying at the Royal Hotel, and that was a very fair bill, and I find that my brother paid that amount in full. In fact, he seems to have paid 1d more. The amount came to £27 19s 11d, and he gave £28. The balance that my brother had was £17 9s, and that with the amounts of the bills that he paid makes the £100 exactly, with which you will find he is debited by cheque here. If you would wish to ask my brother any questions, he is now in the room.

  • 18320.

    I do not think we shall have to trouble Captain Roberts ? — That is a statement of how the £100 was spent. Somebody stated that it was mentioned in the paper that he had been bribing, and I thought you would like to know it.

  • 18321.

    (Mr. Holl.) What is this: “Simmonds £72?” Do you know what that was for ? — It is Mr Spofforth’s clerk named Simmonds, and I should think that was a payment to him.

  • 18322.

    Do you know what it was for ? — No. If my memory serves me right, Mr Simmonds went down with me the day I first went down of all, and then he was at Deal, on and off, the whole time of the election.

  • 18323.

    Was that a payment made by you to him, do you think ? — I do not know, I am sure; it is only brought back to my mind by your pointing it out to me.

  • 18324.

    Perhaps you will think it over, and see if you can remember it ? — I will try and do so.