What follows below is the Commissioners’ Report into their findings following a three week trial into the events that took place during the 1880 Sandwich by-election. The trial came about because of a successful petition by the Liberal candidate Sir Julian Goldsmid to investigate the result and the illegal methods used to achieve it.
In their judgement on the petition, they commented that this inquiry differed from the others they had dealt with due to the blatant disregard for and widespread use of practices outlawed by statute for some 25 years, which the populations of Sandwich, Deal and Walmer revived to an unparalleled extent.
To THE Queen’s most Excellent Majesty.
We, the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices at the last parliamentary election for the borough of Sandwich, submit this our Report to Your Majesty.
The parliamentary borough of Sandwich is made up of the borough of Sandwich and the two parishes of Deal and Walmer, which were added to Sandwich by the Reform Act of 1832.
Sandwich comprises a compact area of about 756 acres, situated about two miles inland and six or seven miles from Deal and Walmer, which two places, to all appearance forming one town, consist of a narrow fringe of houses stretching along the sea about three miles and covering a space of 1,800 acres. Sandwich is connected with Deal by railway.
The population of the parliamentary borough which in 1871 was 14,885, is now probably somewhat larger by the increase of Deal and Walmer. The number of the constituency upon the register in force for 1880 was 2,115, Sandwich contributing 465, Deal 1,253, and Walmer 311 electors. About a hundred names should be struck off for duplicate entries, deaths, and removals, leaving a pollable constituency on May 18th, 1880, of about 2,000.
Sandwich is locally governed by a mayor, four aldermen, and 12 town councillors, and the freedom of the borough confers the right to vote on 143 persons, of whom the majority reside at Sandwich. Deal is also governed by a mayor and corporation, while the affairs of Walmer are managed by a local board.
The population of Sandwich is of a rural character engaged in no manufacture and no special trade. Deal is distinguished by the large number of its inhabitants occupied in seafaring pursuits as channel pilots, boatmen and fishermen; with Walmer it constitutes a watering place of no great ambition, though provided with a parade and boasting a pier.
The resident gentry of these places are very few in number, while of the tradesmen several conduct a respectable business, but none on more than a moderate scale.
In Sandwich there are 33 licensed public-houses and beer-houses, in Deal 74 fully licensed public houses and 14 beer-houses, and in Walmer 21 licensed public-houses and beer-houses.
The following table represents the results of the parliamentary contests since 1857:-
| General Election, 1857. | ||
| E. H. Knatchbull Hugessen | Liberal | 547 |
| Lord Clarence Paget | Liberal | 503 |
| J. McGregor | Conservative | 322 |
| J. Lang | Independent | 24 |
| General Election, 1859. | ||
| E. H. Knatchbull Hugessen | Liberal | 497 |
| Lord Clarence Paget | Liberal | 458 |
| Sir James Ferguson | Conservative | 404 |
| W. D. Lewis | Conservative | 328 |
| Bye-Election, 1859, consequent upon Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen accepting office. | ||
| E. H. Knatchbull Hugessen | Liberal | 463 |
| Sir J. Ferguson | Conservative | 180 |
| General Election, 1865. | ||
| E. H. Knatchbull Hugessen | Liberal | 494 |
| Lord Clarence Paget | Liberal | 477 |
| W. Capper | Conservative | 413 |
| Bye-Election, 1866, consequent upon Lord Clarence Paget’s accepting an appointment. | ||
| W. Capper | Conservative | 466 |
| Thomas Brassey | Liberal | 458 |
| General Election, 1868. | ||
| E. H. Knatchbull Hugessen | Liberal | 933 |
| Henry A. Brassey | Liberal | 923 |
| Baron H. de Worms | Conservative | 710 |
| General Election, 1874. | ||
| Henry A. Brassey | Liberal | 1,035 |
| E. H. Knatchbull Hugessen | Liberal | 1,006 |
| Hughes Hallett | Conservative | 764 |
| M. S. Baillie | Conservative | 611 |
| General Election, March 1880. | ||
| E. H. Knatchbull Hugessen | Liberal. | |
| Henry A. Brassey | Liberal. | |
| Returned unopposed. | ||
The result of the by-election on May 18th, 1880, consequent on the elevation to the peerage of Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen, was that Mr. Crompton Roberts, Conservative, was returned with 1,145 votes, against Sir Julian Goldsmid, Liberal, with 705.
At the general election in March, 1880, Mr. Crompton Roberts had formed the idea of contesting the borough, but he was assured by an agent sent to investigate the matter, that success against the sitting members would be hopeless, as they were much liked, but that it was believed Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen would receive a peerage or a colonial appointment, and that in that case the borough would be sure to return a Conservative. On the announcement of the intended elevation of Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen to the peerage Mr. Crompton Roberts at once took the field. He went to Deal to receive a deputation on the 28th or 29th of April.
On the 4th of May, having been selected as the candidate, he again went down and began his canvass, and on the following day he was joined by Mr. Edwin Hughes, of Woolwich, whom he had appointed his agent for the election. Mr. Edwin Hughes was recommended to Mr. Crompton Roberts by his private solicitor as ” the most celebrated electioneering agent of the day.” He was, no doubt, an agent of great experience and success. He had recently organised the return of Mr. Boord and Baron de Worms, at Greenwich, and of the three Conservative members for the City of London. From the moment he came to Deal he exercised complete authority; he “never,” he said, “had a more obedient set to deal with than the Conservatives at Sandwich,” and being in the service of a candidate who, to use his own words, was “under the impression that an election cost something like £10,000,” he probably had never a better opportunity for the exercise of his talents.
The first step taken by Mr. Edwin Hughes, for which indeed the ground had beenprepared before his arrival, was to secure a majority of the public-houses, and with them the little coteries of customers which each landlord could influence. Seventy-one committee rooms in public-houses were engaged in Deal and Walmer, and 18 in Sandwich. The chief public-house at Sandwich, and the chief public-house at Deal received £10 each for the use of a committee room, the remainder a uniform sum of £5.
In some twenty cases these committee rooms were used for meetings or for the transaction of a trifling amount of business, but in the majority of instances the engagement of these committee rooms was merely colourable. In one instance, a publican having let a room to one side, let another to their opponents. In another case a publican let to one party the inside of his house for committees, to the other the use of the outside for bills.
These public-houses did not average more than £20 annual rental value. It was attempted at the hearing of the petition and before us, to justify the engagement of these houses on the ground that they were needed as stations for bill posting. The attempt failed before the election judges, and after more prolonged investigation into the matter we have no doubt that the taking a considerable portion of these public-houses was a colourable means of gaining the votes of their proprietors and of influencing the votes of their frequenters.
From the time of their arrival a vigorous canvass was organised and carried out by Mr. Crompton Roberts and Mr. Edwin Hughes, and for this purpose no less than 42 paid canvassers, at the rate of £6 each, besides others who were paid by the day, were employed for Deal and Walmer alone. The argument chiefly used with effect appears to have been that unless the Conservatives were successful it was the last time they would ever contest the place. Lists were prepared, called bringing up lists, that is to say, lists of the voters who would need on the polling day to be looked after and brought to the poll. And although it seems that before the appearance of a Liberal candidate, the expenditure on flags, which was afterwards carried to an enormous extent, did not take place, about 30 flag poles were erected in the first week.
On the Liberal side two or three other candidates had been proposed, but had declined on being informed that the seat was contested, and that the election would probably cost about £2,000. On Monday May 10th, Mr. Crompton Roberts having been already a week in the field, and time pressing, Mr. Richard Joyns Emmerson, who for many years had been the agent of the Liberal party at Sandwich, went to London had an interview with Sir Julian Goldsmid, and pressed him to return with him at once to Sandwich. Sir Julian, after some hesitation, accepted the invitation, and accompanied Mr. Emmerson to Sandwich, where he arrived about 7 p.m., and was introduced to Mr. James Barber Edwards, the Liberal agent for Deal and Walmer.
We have to report that in the contest which ensued, and which occupied from Monday the 10th to Tuesday the 18th of May 1880, there was practised throughout the constituency not only indirect bribery of various kinds as herein-after described, but direct bribery, the most extensive and systematic.
We have already mentioned the taking of 89 public-houses on the Conservative side as their first measure in the contest or in anticipation of it. In the same way, but to a much less extent, and in some cases at a slightly lower price, the Liberals engaged committee-rooms in 7 public-houses in Sandwich and 27 in Deal and Walmer ; some of these committee-rooms were unnecessary and were not used.
The Conservative party expended for canvassers and messengers £612. They further expended on clerks and personation agents the sum of £125, and for boards and board boys, £139 ; in all £876.
On the Liberal side the sum expended at Deal for canvassers, messengers, clerks, personation agents, and board boys together was 185/., in Walmer 69/., and for the same in Sandwich £50, making in all £304.
The expenses incurred for printing on the Conservative side amounted to £221. ; on the Liberal side the claims made for printing amounted to £115.
On carriages the Conservatives incurred expenses to the amount of £224. The claims against the Liberals amounted to £196.
The seafaring character of Deal and Walmer suggested a very fertile method of expending money for the benefit of voters.
The display of flags at elections was traditional in these places, but the practice was for a time checked by the legislation on the subject in 1854. On the present occasion, however, the two sides vied with each other in extravagant and still more extravagant display of colours, till fairly tired out in the rivalry. All assuming to be drapers in the town, and many others whose regular business hardly lay in that line, supplied the materials for flags in the greatest profusion, and a considerable proportion of the wives and daughters of the inhabitants were employed to make them and to paint inscriptions on them. When made, the flags had to be exhibited on poles, and large sums were paid for the hire and purchase of poles. The poles had to be erected, and gangs of men, usually at the rate of 30s. a pole, were employed to erect them. In some cases the hire of ground for poles afforded an opportunity of gratifying voters. In one instance £2.10s. was paid for permission to erect a pole opposite an elector’s house ; in another £3 was received for a similar privilege, a sum equal to six years’ rent of the garden in which the pole was placed. Ropes were necessary to secure the poles, and ropes were purchased in vast quantities. But the ingenuity of expenditure did not end here. It was feared that the elaborate structures of poles and cordage might be injured by the opponents or perhaps by the friends of their constructors, and bodies of men, most of whom possessed votes, were employed to watch them. It was impossible to say what time or exertion was given in return for this payment, but we did not ascertain that any damage was effected or attempted.
After the election still further sums were paid for the removal of these poles and banners. The total expenditure on the Conservative side on flags, poles, rosettes, and all connected with them exceeded £796, while that on the Liberal side on similar objects did not fall short of £660.
A regatta proposed for May 17th received the warm support of the Conservative candidate. He subscribed £25 to its funds, and he further engaged the pier for the day for the purpose of throwing it open to the free use of the inhabitants without distinction of party. The programme of this regatta, revealing the intended generosity of Mr. Crompton Roberts, was sent by that gentleman to the electors, together with the circular soliciting their votes, and a form to be filled up and returned in case of their wishing to pledge their support. The regatta was, however, given up on account of bad weather, but the fund destined for prizes remained in the hands of a committee consisting of four or five Conservative electors. They informed us that they considered themselves trustees of the amount in case the regatta should ever be held.
On the Liberal side the absence of a regatta was supplied by a boat painted blue (the Liberal colour) and by persons dressed in blue who perambulated the streets. For this display, to which Mr. Edwards, the agent of Sir Julian, consented, £25 was paid, and the item was entered in the list of claims under the title “The Boat Regatta.”
We feel compelled, before leaving the subject of the lavish expenditure at this election, to direct attention to the personal expenditure of the Conservative candidate. In the two weeks during which he was at Deal his disbursements in the town and the cost of the living of himself, his family and friends at Deal amounted to a sum of about £650. No part of this amount found its way into the published accounts.
For the week during which he was with Lady Goldsmid at Deal, Sir Julian Goldsmid informed us that his personal expenses were only £33.
We should have considered it to be our duty to have reported more fully on the extravagance of the several kinds of expenditure we have mentioned, and which we are of opinion in some cases constituted corrupt practices, and its effect upon individual electors, were it not that direct bribery prevailed at the election in question to so great an extent as not only to place beyond need of further question the character of the election, and the character of the constituency, but also in the vast majority of individual cases by incontestably establishing the existence of direct pecuniary corruption to render it unnecessary to investigate the less direct influence of colourable employment.
It is clear that on the 11th May, Mr. Hughes was preparing the means by which bribery on an extensive scale would be carried out. The total sum paid by Mr. Roberts, over which Mr. Hughes had control, was £6,500. Of this sum £600 was paid to Mr. Hughes on the 11th of May, by Mr. Crompton Roberts, by means of a cheque drawn to “Mr. Hoare” (Mr. Crompton Roberts’ partner in business) “or bearer,’ and was with a further sum of £300 out of other moneys provided by Mr. Crompton Roberts, paid by Mr. Hughes into the Bank of England in the names of his clerk and four leading Conservatives of Deal. A further sum of £1,400 passed through Mr. Hughes’ hands in the following way : – On the 11th of May, Mr. Crompton Roberts gave to Mr. Hughes a memorandum in pencil, which was in effect an order for an unlimited amount on Mr. Hoare. Mr. Hughes having received this memorandum, took it to London, gave it there to an agent named Horne, who conveyed it, with a note from Mr. Hughes, to Mr. Hoare, received from Mr. Hoare a cheque for £1,400. Of this £1,400, £400. was paid to Mr. Hughes’ credit. The remaining £1,000 had a somewhat complicated history. It was paid by Messrs. Glyn, Mills, Currie & Co. by Mr. Hughes’ directions to M. M. Bellairs et Fils, bankers at Calais. The agent of Mr. Hughes, in Paris, at his request informed a leading Conservative at Deal, Samuel Olds, that this sum was standing to his credit at M. M. Bellairs et Fils, and at the same time the signature of Olds was sent to M. M. Bellairs by Mr. Hughes through Messrs. Glyn’s. On the 14th of May, Olds went to Calais and received the £1,000 in a cheque for £281 and bank notes. He was met at Dover by Horne, who received the cheque and notes from him, took them to London, changed them for gold, and on the 14th of May went down to Deal and gave the gold to Olds.
From Thomas, Mr. Hughes’ clerk, Olds, at various times before the 17th of May, received sums amounting to £1,500. The whole of the £2,500 thus coming into Olds’ hands, was given to him for the purpose of its being expended in direct bribery to voters, at the rate of £3 a head, and the whole or nearly the whole of it was so expended. The bringing up lists containing as above mentioned 850 names were utilised for this purpose. The 850 names were divided into groups and the sum was apportioned in various amounts to about 40 persons, who distributed it to the individuals in the several groups at the rate of £3 a head. The £900 in the Bank of England was intended to have been used in bribery, but it was not in fact so used nor indeed was it drawn till after the election was over.
The actual distribution of money to individuals was effected without difficulty. We could find only one or two instances in which a bribe was refused.
We have not found that there was any direct bribery in the Conservative interest other than by the expenditure of this sum of £2,500 just mentioned, except in one or two trifling instances.
On the Liberal side the election agent of Sir Julian Goldsmid for Deal and Walmer was Mr. James Barber Edwards, a solicitor ; for Sandwich another solicitor, Mr. Richard J. Emmerson.
The total sum provided by Sir Julian Goldsmid, over which Mr. Edwards had control, was £1,820, which was paid to him in the following manner. In the hurry of his departure from London with Mr. Emmerson, which took place at an hour’s notice. Sir Julian left without any cheque-book, and with only two cheques in his pocket-book, one on his general drawing account at the London and Westminster Bank, and the other on the Bank of England, where he kept an account for certain special purposes only, the nature of which was explained by the production of the account. Mr. Emmerson told Sir Julian on this occasion that to contest the borough would cost between £2,000 and £3,000. On the morning of Tuesday, the 11th of May, Mr. Edwards asked Sir Julian for money, and at the same time told him that it was usual at Deal to have a sum deposited to answer the expenses of the election, and that about £2,000 or £2,500 would be required. Sir Julian told him it had not been his custom to deposit money in advance, and did not then assent to this course, but filled up and gave him the cheque on the London and Westminster Bank for £200. On the morning of Wednesday the 12th, Mr. Edwards again applied for money, and as Sir Julian had no other cheque he filled up the cheque on the Bank of England for £320 and gave it to Mr. Edwards, but requested him as that account was for special purposes, to advance the amount, and hold the cheque as a security until it should be redeemed by Sir Julian by a cheque on his general account, which was afterwards done as hereafter mentioned.
On the evening of the same day Mr. Edwards again told Sir Julian that he should require more money promptly to provide for the expenses of the election. Sir Julian had no other cheque ; but he wrote on Wednesday night or by the first post on Thursday morning to his secretary in London to forward him a cheque-book. As, however, that gentleman was sometimes absent attending to the business of a relative of Sir Julian, whose affairs he also managed, Sir Julian was in some uncertainty as to the time the cheque-book might arrive, and as it happened that on the Wednesday evening Mr. Francis Flint Belsey, a friend and supporter of Sir Julian at Rochester had come for the purpose of speaking in the Liberal interest at a meeting at Deal, and was about to return to Rochester on the morning of Thursday, the 13th, Sir Julian, after the meeting, spoke to Mr. Belsey with respect to the request of Mr. Edwards for a prompt supply of money, about £1,500, to cover the expenses of the election, the fact of his having no cheques with him, and the uncertainty he was in of getting any as soon as he might require them, and as he had determined to comply with Mr. Edwards’ request it was suggested that Mr. Belsey, who was about to return immediately, should go to Messrs. Foord, at Rochester, and request them to send £1,200 or £1,500 to Mr. Emmerson as promptly as they could. Mr. Belsey consented to convey the message, and Sir Julian gave him in writing the name and address of Mr. Emmerson, to whom the money was to be sent at Sandwich. Messrs. Foord were land agents and contractors, and friends and supporters of Sir Julian, at Rochester, and they had for several years paid his subscriptions, the registrations, and some private expenses at Rochester, and had also at the election there in April 1880 paid £800 for him for election expenses. About midday on Thursday, the 13th, Mr. Belsey saw Mr. Charles Ross Foord and Mr. John Ross Foord at their office at Rochester, and conveyed to them Sir Julian’s request. No direction or suggestion was made either by Sir Julian to Mr. Belsey, or by Mr. Belsey to Messrs. Foord respecting the source whence the money should be obtained, or as to the form in which it should be sent. Mr. C. R. Foord went that afternoon to London, drew from the London Joint Stock Bank £1,200 in gold which he took back with him to Rochester, and adding to it £300 in gold which the firm had at their office on Friday the 14th took the whole £1,500 to Sandwich. He was met at the station by Mr. Emmerson, and went with him to his office, where they were joined by Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Foord then handed over the £1,500 to them. Out of the above-mentioned £1,500, £200 was retained by Mr. Emmerson and the other £1,300 was taken by Mr. Edwards.
Out of the £200 so kept by Mr. Emmerson, £60 was afterwards on Monday, May 17th, given by him to Benjamin Longden Coleman, and was by Coleman expended on the day of the election in bribing voters with sums from £1 to £4 each. The remaining £150 was retained by Mr. Emmerson, who had the intention of ultimately handing it to Coleman for the fulfilment of promises made by Coleman, but this was not done.
Out of the sums of £200, £320, and £1,300, making together £1,820 received by Mr. Edwards, together with £115 of his own money, he paid to Edwin Cornwell £297, to John Pettitt Ramell £208, and to Edward Thomas Rose £306, which sums were respectively expended by those persons for the general purposes of the election, some of which were illegal but not corrupt ; and to John Thomas Outwin £1,125, of which Outwin expended £75 upon the hire of 10 public-houses at the rate of £5 each, and the remaining £1,050 in direct bribery at rates varying from £3 to £5 a head, and Edward Thomas Rose expended about £370 in the same way, which was, some time after the election, repaid to him by Mr. Edwards out of his own moneys.
It was never brought to the knowledge of Sir Julian that any part of these sums was intended to be or was expended in the direct bribery above mentioned. In three cases persons interested on the Liberal side expended money of their own in bribery. Richard Gillow, the son of a brewer at Sandwich, spent in this way about £70 or £80; Edwin Hills expended about £48; and Henry Minter Baker, who came from Dover for the purpose of voting, and appears to have taken no part in the election before the polling day, expended about £38.
There was some treating on the Conservative side by canvassers and others, and on the Liberal side, especially at Sandwich, the landlords of several public-houses were allowed to supply voters with drink, but we did not find that treating prevailed to any extent proportionate to the other illegal practices at this election. The superior attractions of direct bribery rendered the seductions of treating superfluous. As one of the witnesses told us, “the people did not want drink, it was not a question of drink, ” it was more a question of money than drink.”
On the Conservative side Mr. E. Hughes acted as expenses agent. He returned as the election expenses the sum of £3,153, having, in fact, as has been stated, received from Mr. Crompton Roberts £6500 for the purposes of the election, and having expended £5,600.
The list of the returned expenses on the Conservative side is subjoined as Appendix A.
The sum of £106 13s. 2d. (personal expenses), in fact, represents items of a miscellaneous character, the principal being the sums given by Mr. Crompton Roberts for the purposes of the regatta and certain subscriptions. The real personal expenditure was not returned at all.
On the Liberal side the agent for election expenses was Mr. Edmund Brown, a retired tradesman, who had acted in a similar capacity at several previous elections. On the Thursday after the election, Sir Julian Goldsmid instructed his solicitor, Mr. George Lewis, to proceed with a petition, a step which Sir Julian had contemplated for some time previously. He placed the whole of the election affairs in Mr. Lewis’ hands, and henceforward in no way interfered either with the settlement of the election accounts or any other matter connected with it. No return of election expenses on the Liberal side was made until the middle of September 1880. At the trial of the election petition in August, documents, by order of the judges, were handed in, showing the claims made on the Liberal candidate. These claims are set out as Appendix B. It will be seen they amount to £2,668. Against them a sum of about £1,400 was paid partly before and partly after the trial of the election petition. The return of expenses subsequently made by the agent is set out as Appendix C. It will be seen that as regards Deal and Walmer the returned expenses are £445 7s. 2d., and as regards Sandwich the returned expenses are £443 5s. 11d., making a total of only £888 13s. 1d.
In addition to the returned expenses for Sandwich, which amounted to £443 5s. 11d., Mr. Emmerson expended in all £149 11s. 9d. He received from Sir Julian himself £210, from Mr. Foord £200, and on laying the above claim of £593 17s. 8d. before Mr. G. Lewis, after the election, he was paid by him against it the sum of £350 making a total of £760. It appeared, however, that Mr. Emmerson did not inform Mr. Lewis that he had received the sum of £200 out of the money brought by Mr. Foord (of which he then had in hand £150), and it does not appear that Mr. Lewis paid the sum of £360, knowing that it or any part of it was in repayment of money spent in bribery.
We find that at the above election 128 persons were guilty of corrupt practice and were guilty of acts of bribery in respect of the votes or other persons. The names of the said persons are set out in Schedule I.
We find that at the above election 1,005 persons were guilty of corrupt practice and of acts of bribery in respect of their votes. The names of such persons are in Schedule II. The 127 persons in the said list against whose names an asterisk is placed received bribes from both sides.
We find that at the above election 48 persons were guilty of corrupt practice by way of treating. Their names are in Schedule III.
We are unable to give certificates of indemnity to the witnesses whose names appear in Schedule IV.
We also desire to call attention to John William Cavell Elliott and Joseph Brown, who were proved to have been guilty of bribing various persons, but whom we were unable to examine, Elliott having left the country shortly after the trial of the petition, and Brown having absconded immediately after receiving a summons to appear before us.
We think it right specially to advert to the conduct of the two candidates at this election.
After very carefully considering the facts elicited, we are unable to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Crompton Roberts gave a tacit sanction to corrupt practices by providing money which he had reason to suspect, and must have suspected, would be used for bribery.
It is difficult to doubt that Mr. Crompton Roberts when on the spot and in the thick of the contest could have failed to become aware that expenditure, to say the least most lavish, was going on all round him, and that the electors whose votes he was seeking to gain were palpably and eagerly open to corrupt influence. The evidence indeed happens from a special circumstance to be very clear as to Mr. Crompton Roberts’ knowledge on the latter point. To a great extent Mr. Crompton Roberts canvassed the electors personally. His practice at Sandwich was to carry with him a canvass book in which he made notes, and which was afterwards handed to his agent, Mr. Cloke, for the purposes of the election. The canvass book for Sandwich was produced to us, and we found in Mr. Crompton Roberts’ handwriting such notes as the following opposite the names of various voters: – “Paralysed; wants help to get change of air or rides out.*” “Wants a better pension, was a warder at the gaol at Sandwich.” “Very favourable and poor.” “Promised; wants a little drop.” “Wants to be seen; cash.” “ Wants much assistance ; had much illness in the house, half a year’s rent at 3s.=£3. 18s. 6d.” “Wife wants liquoring up.” “Query, wife favourable, and been a great sufferer.” “Wife just confined, see.” These entries, or some of them, were at least noticed and transcribed by the agents engaged in the election. For example, the first appears in Mr. Cloke s canvassing book as “wants pay for change of air or rides out.” We do not think it necessary to come to the conclusion that Mr. Crompton Roberts intended these notes as direct suggestions for bribery to his agents ; but we think they show that Mr. Crompton Roberts knew very well that many electors were anxious to sell their votes.
On the 11th of May Mr. Crompton Roberts gave to Mr. E. Hughes, who was then going to London, a cheque drawn to “Mr. Hoare or bearer” for £600, and at the same time an order in pencil on Mr. Hoare for an unlimited amount. Before and after the 11th of May Mr. Crompton Roberts gave to Mr. Hughes cheques for various amounts, all of which were cashed in the regular way, appeared in Mr. Crompton Roberts’ pass book under Mr. Hughes’ name, were entered by Mr. Crompton Roberts’ secretary in Mr. Crompton Roberts’ private ledger under the head of election expenses, and were credited to Mr. E. Hughes in an account he opened at the branch of the National Provincial Bank at Deal. With regard to these cheques a full record therefore existed. But the payment of £600 and the order on Mr. Hoare were treated differently. The cheque for £600 appears in Mr. Crompton Roberts’ pass book only opposite the name “Hoare,” and in the private ledger Mr. Crompton Roberts’ secretary entered it not with the other payments under the head of election expenses, but in an account which consisted of items relating to a private loan to Mr. Hoare, and it never went to Mr. Hughes’ credit at the bank at Deal. The order on Mr. Hoare, and the money obtained by means of it, never found their way into any book of Mr. Crompton Roberts, or any account connected with the election. Mr. Hoare informed us that the £1,400 drawn by means of it would be merely debited against Mr. Crompton Roberts in the partnership accounts of the firm. Why Mr. E. Hughes carried out these measures of secrecy and was satisfied with the manner of placing the funds at his command, is clear from his own statement. It was because, in his own words, he wished to keep it “as money distinct from the election ” in the sense that it might possibly be wanted for matters that were not strictly ” legal,” because “none of that money was for the legitimate purposes of the ” election,” because “it was being provided for a purpose that could not be disclosed.”
It is difficult to believe that so clear a purpose in the mind of Mr. E. Hughes had not been, in some way, though no doubt not by express words, communicated to the mind of Mr. Crompton Roberts, when we find him taking a course just such as Mr. Hughes would have desired. In this view we were anxious to obtain from Mr. Crompton Roberts an explanation of his own reasons for drawing the cheque for £600 to Mr. Hoare, and for giving an unlimited order to Mr. Hughes on Mr. Hoare. As to the order on Mr. Hoare, Mr. Crompton Roberts’ only explanation is that it was given at the request of Mr. Hughes. As to the cheque, his explanation is that it was drawn in the name of Mr. Hoare, because he was not sure whether there was a balance at his bank sufficient to meet it, and he wished Mr. Hoare might see that there was sufficient balance. In giving this evidence Mr. Crompton Roberts was under the impression the cheque was to order, in which case it must have at least passed through Mr. Hoare’s hands. But in fact the cheque was to bearer, so that when giving it to Mr. Hughes, Mr. Crompton Roberts cannot have intended it should necessarily come under Mr. Hoare’s eye, and in fact it never so came. It is not easy to think that a man of Mr. Crompton Roberts’ great wealth would have hesitated to draw a cheque for £600 on his bankers ; and it is the more difficult to believe that he had any real fear this cheque for £600 would not be honoured, when, in fact, before May 3rd, £6,600 was standing to his credit on deposit account (which the bankers, he said, would use to honour cheques if necessary), on May 3rd, £4,000 was added, and on May 11th, the whole £10,500 was available to protect his cheques. Further, we were not informed that Mr. Crompton Roberts, though knowing all he must have known of the election and the electors at any time inquired of Mr. Hughes as to the object for which this money was needed, or as to the purposes for which it was applied.
With regard to Sir Julian Goldsmid, it appears on his own statement that during the contest many things were, to his knowledge, being done on his behalf by his agents and partisans which were in fact forms of bribery. In a written statement read before us by Sir Julian, he says,
“Mr. Emmerson at once telegraphed I was coming, and I believe the Liberal Association and other party managers did what they had always been accustomed to do, viz., engaged public-houses, committee-rooms, clerks, canvassers, messengers, &c., ordered flag-staffs, flags, colours, rosettes, &c., &c., of course on my behalf, and without my knowledge, and ample to invalidate any election. After another day’s canvassing I began to see how matters stood, and that even the Liberals did not wish me to be elected, but only to make a contest ; and on Friday morning I remonstrated again, as I had done before, about the illegal expenditure, and gross outlay in a variety of ways; for instance, an enormous flag-staff was put up the day before (Thursday) in front of our house, with some 20 flags, and no end of men to watch it. Mr, Edwards told me it cost £25. I begged him to stop any more. He said he would give instructions, but these things went on worse than ever up to the end. I do not know whether it was because he did not wish to do what I asked, or whether it was because he was unable to control the people. Another illegal thing which I especially begged Mr. Edwards not to employ was a band, but it was in vain. The amount of fictitious employment was in my opinion enormous ; messengers, clerks, board-boys, flags, &c., &c., most of them, as far as I could find, doing nothing. The Blue boat of Deal, which I never heard of till I saw it, was also another source of fictitious employment, also watehing the flag-staffs after they had been put up, as well as putting them up, and so on.
And speaking of his instructions to his solicitor with reference to the petition, Sir Julian said,
“I told Mr. Lewis to put out all the case against myself as well as against Mr. Crompton Roberts, because I was certain there was a good case against myself, through my agents.
I had told Mr. Belsey about the monstrous expenditure that I had already seen in those two days, upon the flags, upon messengers, upon boys, and upon all these ridiculous things which I have described, and of which you have heard a great deal, and I had been told by Mr. Edwards that all these people had to be paid down, and he asked me for a lump sum at the commencement. I thought that after all instead of being bothered every day for a cheque off me, he had better have a lump sum, and I asked his (Mr. Belsey’s) opinion, placing the greatest reliance on his opinion, and he thought as I did, and I not having any cheque in my pocket, and not knowing, for a reason I can give, whether I should have a cheque in time for Mr. Edwards to inform the bank that cash would be required, I asked Mr. Belsey to go to my usual friends of Rochester, who have constantly paid money for me.”
I see a good deal has been said about payments for flags, &c. I should have a great deal to tell you, and I might take the day if I went through all I saw in that respect. One reason why I calculated £2,000 (apart from the reason that I believe Mr. Edwards had asked me for that sum) would be a very moderate sum, considering the way the election was conducted, was that I counted myself over 150 poles and standards put up in the ‘blue’ interest, as they call it, with flags, &c., and in order to test what was done I went to Mr. Edwards without telling him my object, and asked how much was paid for putting up those poles. I was told that every man upon the Liberal side was paid 25s., and every man upon the Conservative side was paid 30s. Then in order to test it I went to some of the men and asked them how many had been occupied in putting up a moderate sized pole, and was told upon that occasion five. Therefore, I put down the expense of that pole at £6, and considering that I counted there were 150 poles, it showed that an enormous sum of money would be very likely required. It is perfectly illegal I know, and I am fully aware of that. I had asked them not to go on with it, but it was gone on with. The same thing occurred with regard to flags and banners.
It was in consequence of the discovery I made in the course of a couple of days of the illegal mode which I have described, that I thought on Wednesday afternoon of retiring, and I only did not do so because I did not wish to incur the reproach of the Liberal party by giving up the seat”
Sir Julian further stated in reply to a question put by us, that he anticipated that the legitimate expenses of the election, with the things he saw, which he considered very illegal, the flags and so on, but for which he considered he was liable, would amount to £2,000 or about that sum, and that he knew that there was an illegitimate expense being incurred, but that he thought he ought to pay for it, as his agents had ordered it as far as he knew.
Mr. Belsey in his testimony stated as follows : –
” Sir Julian mentioned to me the difficulty he was in through having no cheque, and complained of the lavish expenditure. Of course he could not fight the election purely because he was already committed before he got there ; he was inclined to go away and leave it, but had made up his mind upon full consideration to stop, and he wanted the £1200 or £1,500 for the lavish expenditure which seemed to be the custom of the place. I mean that he could not claim the seat by reason of acts that had been done before he got there. He seemed to have been there without the possibility of carrying the election through, as he would have done had he had the reins from the outset.
By ‘ acts,’ I do not mean bribery, but the engagement of committee rooms, and the expenditure that we saw going on all round in the free employment of labour of every kind, it looked to me as if the election was being fought free-handedly. The impression that Sir Julian left upon my mind was that at that time he had made up his mind to fight the election through, and by means, I do not say, bribery or illegitimate means, but by means which might have been possibly questionable, but whether they were legitimate or illegitimate would have to be left to the decision of the election judges. He was not able to prevent them. I will say lavish means.”
Mr. Belsey also said,
“Sir Julian complained to me of the lavish expenditure in putting up of flags, &c. He said it seemed a very expensive place, and they seemed to have gone on in a lavish way in the putting up of flags, and that they were putting up an enormous flag-pole; but he had determined to fight, and inasmuch as it was done it could not be helped. That is what I gathered from his conversation, and I understood that this money (the £1,500) was wanted for the payment of this sort of work, and the lavish way of carrying it out.”
The above statements of Sir Julian and evidence of Mr. Belsey seem to show that Sir Julian having, after some hesitation, determined from motives of loyalty to his party, to fight the contest to the end, with knowledge of acts and of a lavish expenditure by his agents and partisans, including “fictitious employment to an enormous amount,” and “sufficient to invalidate any election,” though he had remonstrated against them nevertheless caused a sum of £1,500 to be paid into the hands of his agents without any instructions as to its application, and with the intention, as both he and Mr. Belsey admit, that it should be applied not only in discharge of the legitimate expenses of the election, but also the lavish employment and expenditure upon poles and banners, messengers and board-boys, which he had seen going on all around him.
Sir Julian is a barrister, and of considerable experience in all matters connected with elections, and accepting as we do his explanation of the circumstances under and the purposes for which he paid the £1,500 into his agent’s hands, we are unable to avoid the conclusion that he intended it to be applied, in part at least, in the discharge of obligations incurred by his agents in fictitious employment of various kinds, with a view to influence the votes of persons so employed or their relatives, and that though Sir Julian in the first instance remonstrated against such proceedings, yet he afterwards, by so providing the means of payment therefor, tacitly sanctioned such employment, and was consequently legally guilty of a corrupt practice within the statute.
Having found that corrupt practices were committed at the election above mentioned we proceeded to inquire concerning the election immediately previous, according to the provisions of 15 & 16 Vict. c. 57, sect. 6. At the election which took place in March, 1880, there was no contest, Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen and Mr. Henry Brassey being returned as elected without opposition. This fact did not, however, in our judgement, having regard to the language of the statute, (though we are aware that a difference of opinion exists on the subject), either excuse us from inquiring concerning this election, nor did it enable us, having inquired and found that no corrupt practices were committed thereat, to go back to previous elections.
The election expenses of Mr. Knatchbull Hugessen and Mr. Henry Brassey at the election of March 1880 were returned as being in all £364 3s, 5d. for Sandwich, and £199 17s. 2d. for Deal and Walmer. The abstract of these expenses is subjoined in Appendix D. We found that Mr. Edwards, the Liberal agent at Deal and Walmer, received a sum of £100 from Mr. Henry Brassey for his services as agent beyond and above the sum included in the £199 7s. 2d.
The payment of £200 to each agent at an uncontested election appears to us to have been excessive ; but we do not find that any of the payments at this election were corrupt.
We thought it right to inquire into the expenditure of Mr. Henry Brassey in the borough between the years 1874 and 1880, with a view to form a judgment whether the unopposed election was not brought about by expenditure intended to prevent opposition. We ascertained that Mr. Henry Brassey’s subscriptions in the borough amounted to £489 in 1877, £551 in 1878, and £573 in 1879 ; his other expenses in the borough similarly rising from £39 in 1877, to £53 in 1878, and £74 in 1879, exclusive of personal expenditure during a stay at Deal in October of that year. In 1880, before the election took place Mr. Brassey spent and subscribed £315 in the borough ; after the election his similar expenses to the end of the year were only £45.
We ascertained also that Mr. Brassey, in November 1879, entertained the Corporation of Deal at dinner at an expense of £57, and in January 1880, the Corporation of Sandwich at an expense of £44. We think that this expenditure was excessive, and that its effect was to render it impossible for a man not able or willing to go to equal expense to contest or represent Sandwich. But we do not think that this expenditure constituted the commission of corrupt practices at the election of March 1880.
We felt ourselves, therefore, precluded, on the ground already referred to, from inquiry into the election of 1874 or earlier elections. But observing the nature and manner of the bribery committed at the contest between Mr. Crompton Roberts and Sir Julian Goldsmid, the general expectation that money would be distributed in bribery, the almost universal willingness and even avidity to accept bribes, the great proportion of the population implicated, the ease with which the most extensive bribery was carried out, the organization for the purpose of bribery, which was far too facile and complete to be inexperienced, the readiness on the part of many to accept bribes from both sides, and the total absence of a voice to warn, condemn, or denounce, we cannot doubt that electoral corruption had long and extensively prevailed in the borough of Sandwich.
We do not think it within the scope of our duties to offer any recommendations on the subject of the means by which corruption may be better prevented; but we may be permitted to say that evidence given before us appears to establish some conclusions of practical importance.
(1.) It did not appear that the mode of taking votes by ballot had the slightest effect in checking bribery. On the contrary, while it enabled many voters to take bribes on both sides, it did not, as far as we could ascertain, render a single person unwilling to bribe for fear of bribing in vain.
(2.) The law as to the return of election expenses in its present form appears to us practically useless for any purpose. It would seem that the provisions intended to compel the real expenses to be returned, are in effect disregarded, and do not even ensure any return at all. There is nothing to compel or even enable the election expenses agent to exercise any effective control over the return. If the law had compelled a strict audit of election expenses, and provided that the candidates should disclose the amount and manner of their real expenditure at the election, bribery could not probably have been committed at the election at Sandwich, certainly not in the way by which or by means of the resources out of which it was accomplished.
(3.) The engagement of committee-rooms at public-houses afforded a method by which the keeper of the public-house and his clientėle were very easily bribed.
(4.) The payment of the expenses to out-voters appeared to us to degenerate very readily into over-payment amounting to a bribe.
(5.) The employment of canvassers, clerks, and messengers, to an extent not measured by any real requirement, and the extravagant display of party emblems offered abundant opportunities for corruption.
All which we have the honour to-submit for Your Majesty’s most gracious consideration.
(Signed) WM. H. HOLL. , R E. TURNER. , F. H. JEUNE;
Temple, February 9th, 1881.