The Sun. — London, England, 1804-01-14 00:00:00

stances at least existed, yeti ha& reason to believe that it was without his Grace's privity. As to the latter, I omitted it merely because a strong doubt had been thrown upon its authenticity. Respeding this pm of mysoriginal statement you will allow me to say, Sir, that the contradinion of it, which your paper c,ntains, does nut seetn to me to be so complete as to warrant a positive retraction : for that cantradiftinn anv , unts only Ma general declaration on she part of his Grace's agents and superintendants 4 ' at the time.," that no such occurrence took place. The precis time when it was supposed to.kave taken place ° does not appear, and it may have been pre viously to the employment of the agents and super. intendants in question. I have made another effort to obtain either a refutation or a ctinfirtnation of the statement, from the quarter whence I originally re. ceived it ; and -I assure you, Sir, that I shall be' very happy to find, by clear, precise, and indisput able e , vidence, that tea such fait eq;et existed. Respeaing the nonattendance at .church, I beg you to recolleEt that this circumstance was not .brought forward by. me as a substantive cha r g e , b ut incidentally, in consequence of the Duke's eulogists 'holding him up as a perfeft charaCter, and omit t ing in their enumeration of the qualities which rendered him so all m . ntion of seligion : a kind of descrip tion which I am sure you Will admit to have a very injurious tendency. Should I go into a new edition,' I shall be happy to give all the erica I cats to your statement 'on this, as well as on the other subjefts which,statement : l have, in the mean time, commu nicated" to the Editor of the. Anti.-Jacobin . Re view, fot him to make what the of it he may think proper. I have Honour to Le, Sir, Your most faithful Servant, JOHN BOWLES. Adion, Esq. Lincoln's Inri. ,Lincoln'; Int!, 14. th 1114 y, 1803. SIR, I have received your's of the loth : after what passed in our conversation, it by no means answers the expeaati,ln which I had formed. The refutation as to emptying the pondi,-seems to me as precise as the charge would admit ; but if You will state to me the time when it is ailedged to have ,k,„ p l ace , as I know from my examina_ lion into ir that it io wjthout foundation, • I shall by referring to bates r ender the refutation complete. With respca to the non-attendance in church, 'it is important to destroy .the, impression which was produced by your publication, and in that light my tatemegt should be communicated by you to the Public. - I. onderstool from our conversation that you would I,ave direded its insertion, in the Anti-Jaco bin- t). , ...view, as your publishing another edition is uncertain, and if certain, distant . : when I learn from you the time to which I am to refer, as to emptying the fiih_ponds, I will send you the ref-u. tation, in perfed confidence that you will order it to be inserted in the Anti-Jacobin Review. • .. I am, Sir,.. Your most obedient Servant, • WILLIAM ADAM. _ _ .7cbr Rattles, cOI74 , 4ISS;GIIerI Cia;erro, ,Bread. street. Lincoln's Mg, juize 13, 1803. ' 6 - . 51w,• thrreweeks have elapsed since I wrote to you in reply to your Letter concerning the cunver. sation which we had, and the Paper which I sent _ 4 ,, :: y0u above a month before, on the subject of your _publications relating to the. late Duke of Bsovo R It is possible that the Letter may have miscar,. lied, it was, put into the P.mny.post 4ddressed (as you desired} to the Office of Commissioners of Dutch Cairns, Broad-street. I wish to know from you whether the Letter has ,been received, if it has not I will supply the defeel as :soon as you. inform me that it has not teached you, .hut if it has, I have just reaton to complain that " I have no answer ; and. I shall consider myself as justified,, unless what .was arranged is adopted, in taking.other measures to attain the ohjea expressefl i n m y conversation and correspondence with you. • I am, Sir • _ . Yoy most obedient Servant, WILLIAM ADAM. ;obi: Boviles, Esq. 05c . e of .Commissionei-s of Usstch. Broad-ftreet. Dutch Commisiioncre gji;e, lune 14. OR. The chief cause of.my silence hasbeeri the even. sion of my- s t a y at Brighton, where I received your last Lester hut one. Since my return, ',have been endeavouring to ascertain the authenticity of my original information respeding .the emptying of the pond. I hope this day or tchinorrow toreceive a communi cat i on on that subjeti ; , and ,inde t d I was waiting for this communication 'to write to you the moment it arrives you shall heat from me, and I send this in the mean time il lat I may not ape pear inattentive. I remain, Sir, Your most obedient and humble Servapr, JOHN BOWLES. You seem to think by your former Letter that I have'some controul over the Anti-Jacobin Review; which is not the case. William Adam, Es?. Lincoln's Inn.' Dutch CoNvnitsiourre Ofc4, june.24, 1803, SIR, I 'Live at length ,received the letter of which in my last I stated Mysellto be in expedation, and I am sorry t o say that it does not contain the desired information. Noi being enabled either to confirm or retral my statement respeding the pod, I think it incumbent upon ine to give you the authority .jn which that statement was founded. My. worthy friend the ev. WlLLrdnt AGlrr- TER, of the Asylum, bei7g at Woburn in i 797; ceived the information which I have communic.ired to the Pliblic'from the parish cltrk of that U,OIT the repi-iseltatitor Aott did me the ho. sour to lake, I, of course, applied 1. , 0 Mr. TER, who immediately wrote to the parish . clerk desiring him to confirm his narrative, or to contra_. digit if not true. Noanswer wa r s received hy„Mr. A. Upon the receipt of your letter at Brighton,' again wrote to this Gentleman, requesting him. to renew his application; this he- did after my return to town, and I waited for his communication of the result to reply to you. lie now.infouns me that his second letter, like the first, is unanswered. Under these circumstances, desirous as I am to do justice to the memory of the deceased, and to the feelings of the living Duke,..l cannot considet the faCt respetaing the pond as refuted. To the expla. nation With - which you 'Lye favoured me resp:6l - the two oilier fads, I, should be happy to be the means of giving publicity ; and I refer it to you, Sir, to decide whether, this shall be done, as expedi. tiously as possible, by sending an article to the Edi. tor of the Anti-Jacobin Review, or whether ,the whole shall wait for more precise .information. re. spthing the emptying of the pond. I remain, Sir, your most obedient servant, - William Adam, Esq. JOE - IN BOWLES. • 'Lincoln's Inn. SIR, Lincoln's bill, 24th June, 1803. I shall be able, I hope, in a few days, to ascer. rain beyond a doubt, the state of the fait said to have taken place in 1797, and I wish any publica. tion to be. suspended till I shall have made that clear ; as it will be much mote satisfa , Aory, that the pUblication - shOulktake place altogether. Yo'ir obedient humble servant, 7ahn Bowles, Esq. WILLIAM ADAM . . Office of Commiss i oners of Dutch Claims, Braad.stteet. (No date. Igdorsed" Re4.eived ja1y,1803.1) ;SIR, Having a ;fiery pressing %Inntnons to attend the Lord Lieutenant of Surrey tomorrow, at Epsom, I shall be prevenred (torn corning to town; and ; va riety of business elsewhere will hinder my being at this office till Tuesday, perhaps till Wednesday next; but if you will favour mewith any 'commit. nication, I will attend to it immediately. I am, Sir, your most obecli , nt servant, William Adam, Eq. JOHN BOWLES. Lb:coin's hiri. ; t (Mr. Bowles's objection to make all the reparation required of him to the character•of the cleceatectDuke of Bcdtbrd, ap peared to be reduced to the ascertainment of one tact ; tht truth or falsehood of which was capable of direet proof, by a' reference to Mr. Agutter's visit to .Woburn, and his'converl `cation with the parish clerk there, inthe year 1797. Mr. Adam, in order to obtain the necessary information on that subject, wrote to Woburn, and received copies of the following letters, in the hand-writing of Mr. Cartwright's clerk.) ASYLUM, JANUARY 4111; 1803. " SIR, - " I do nut know whether you recolletl, - four or five years ago, a clergyman and a lady coming wirh Mrs. HADLipN, Mr. Ft?..K.ES'S house-keeper, to see the parish church at Woburn, and haying'some-con versation with you about the late Duke. I wish to rtcolleft some particulars, and not to assert any thing but on good ground. It was said then, that he had never been at his parish church I find that he was there once since, ana that was on an Easter as the Dule was in the curnaliSSlOn for the peace, perhaps he received the sacrament on'that day; as a qualification for 'his office ; perhaps YoU can easily ascertain this. ‘. I was informed, either by• Mrs. HADDON or by you, of a large pond being emptied'on a Sunday . ; ardof labourersbeing . paid their wages on a Sunday; if ybu can either confirm or refute these charges,-you will very much oblige me,• while you do an ad - of justice. 4 ! I am, &c• WILLIAM AGUTTER," To the Parish Clerk of 1142""" " stR, Asylum, 3 . upm, 2, 1805. I did myself the pleasure of writing to you some trhinths ago, to state, that I was the Gtllliermn to whom you were shewing the parish church of -Wo burn, about five or-Six years ago, When you men tioned, among other circurnstaike's, of the late Duke of BEDFORD not attending his . liarish church ; that the great -pond was emptied on a Sunday : to that let ter I-have not been favoured with an answer ; but may I particularly, request an answer to this, that you will, to, the best of jour' memory, 'recolle& 'the circumstance, and the _information given ? If it was true, you can have no °Net:firm to confirM die 1;10; and if it were nvt true, my worthy friend who, on my assertion, has publlshed it, -•will be ready to retra& what he has advanced. "J request, again, Sir, as due to yourself; and the cause of justice and truth, that you will give every explanation you are able, by a 'speedy 'an swer to this. " am, ecc. • . WILLIAM AGUTTER." To the Pqrish Clerk of Woburn. U SIR, . " Your lette rs b e i ng g i ve n to t h e present Clerk of the parish of Woburn, they were not slew q to me, whti was Clerk at the time you speak. of till this morning. " 1 shall kfisweryoUr enquiries according to the . best of my recolledion. Ido not remember the cir, cumstance of any body' coming to see the cLurch. along with Mr. FtltEs's house-keeper : I never recoiled seeing the late Duke of BEDFORD after , his return front France at church, but - once.'; hut that was neither on Easter Sunday, nor on any Sunday on which the sacrinvtnt :vas ad m i n i stere d. " The story o f . a 4ornber of people being ern ployed.in emplying 'out the great pond-at the Ab bey, and of the Dues paying his labourers on 'a 'Sunday; you could not possibly r have had from me, nor from any person who wished to speak the troth ; both stinks being scandalous falsehoods.— The regular pay-day of the labourers was, and still is, every Saturday fortnight, none of whom, as far as I can learn t *ere ever employed on the Sablia t i l , daY, except those who 'must necessarily .attend morning and evening to feed the cattle. "J am, - 4.c. • EDWARD MAN-SELL." Rev, Mr. 4,ga:ter, dis,ylam. • • (On the sth of August, Mr- AnAm sheaved the Copies of the Letters of Mr: Agutter, and Mr. MA N ELL to Mr. BowLEs.) SIR, Dulwich Common, Aug. 6, 1803. In our conversation yesterday, I •think you aa. mitted, that the letter received by Mr. AtUTTER, .and purporting to be written by the Parish Clerk of Woburn, was mot, in. reality,....writteo by. that person ; of this indeed, I was before convinced, and I cannot help observing, that this circumstance very much invalidates, in my mind, the effect of the testimony which it is the objea of that letter to give. At best, that testimony, as I observed to you; would.amount only to a denial in 18,03, of a fad which the WitneSi is proved to have asserted in 1797. But as the letter is. not- aElually ,written by the person whose letter it purports to be,. its . tired is, at least, munch diminished by that circum stance. Could not that person write ? Should it be said that he diClated - the letter, and only Wrote by an amanuensis, I must observe, that the letter bears internal evidence that it is not of his dicta_ tion t moreover, thc copy of • The Correspondence, which you produ:ed to me, was evidently in the same hand-writing . as the letter received by Mr. AGUTTER. This I cannot help considering as a remarkable circumstance., I cannot doubt, Sir, .your wish to treat MC with the utmost candour, but what I have stated has strongly the appearance of duplicity. Notwithstanding my wish to consult the feelings of a. Noble Family, whom I much re speCt, as far as may be consistent with truth and justice, the same openness which. I have hitherto displayed through Out my communicatiops with you, induces we to trouble you with these observations. I ani,'Sir; • Yew most obedient Servant, Wm. Adam, Esq. JOHN BOWLES, .4; s SIR, Woburn Abbej,,Aug, z ztb, 1803! _ . As I was leaving/ town yesterday evening, I re. ceived a letter from ydu, dated the 6th inst. 4ut haviag the post-mark of two o'clock, loth August. You say in it, that I adinitted in our conversation of the sth, '' that the letter received by Mr. AGUTTF,R, and purporting to he written by the Parish clerk Of Woburn, was not in reality written by that •pers.on." To which I answer that I did not make any such admission ; 'and it was impossi ble I should, as all that I knew, or yet know of the letter arises from the copy sent me': your rea:- soning therefore, as faras it rests on this atitriis, sion by me, is wi t h out foundation. Nor do I admit the other parts of your reasoning : • I do not titink the letter aff„.4ds ipternal evidence to prove that it is not Mr. Mansell's, nor " that, it amounts only to a deni4l in 18 0•3 of a - fad which the Witness is prov ed to have asserted in 1797 the letter only puts the matter in this situation -Mr. AGUTTER asserts that Mr. MANSELL related the stories to him 'in 1797, and Mr. MANSELL denies., that he could do so, as they are " scandalous falsehoods:" • . Myobservation to.you in our last. conversation was, that things thus circu.nstanced, the fats could only _be decided by the evidence of those Who were •emploYed by the Duke of Bedford at the time : I said I would Obtain their declarations, anti that then the whole might be published together ; to. this I understood you to 'assent. • Jam, Sir, ' • Your most otraient Servant, • WILLIAA ADAM. • • Yohn Bowles, Eli. examined Mr. MA and various iie r r Nr ifi.s- AilA in the service of the. l ate Duke of li Eu y oa ' n, t o all the points of circinnstance+and ti tle to w hi c h M r. llowLLs!s. original charges could possibly re f Lr, transmitted Copies of their Exatninations,to,Mr. tows.F.s with the following Let tpr . . _ ' • Wobur n , Abbey, Au g . 3 xBo3. wasNsEtt.'s Letter writ ten . •I When . I wrote to you fr om, hence, on Thursday last; I had not had time to get inf ormat i on respea hwi n aa g yset t l i n : k e o ewn m e a dx n o:wi c an r i ,n i e n oar. whichtilab7 whom M circumstance in the obser. vation signed .with my name- annexed to MA,NsELL's Narrative. Upon the perusal of those Narratives'(the origi nals of which Ihave retained in my possession, and which I shall be ready . at any time,, on my. return to. town, to submit to your inspe*Etion), have i no doubt that you will, without farther hesitation, publish the short statement which I sent to you in it Letter dated the 15th of April last. I likewise havt. no doubt that, in conformity ta what passed between us.at the. India. Howie on the sth instant, , you will publish Mr. AGLITTER'S two Letters to the Clerk of the Parish of Woburn, Mr. MANE L's Answer, 'and all the Narratives which I now enclose, by which it appears. that the short statement which . I sent to you is correEt in the stri4est sense of the word. It will appear---hut if nor, -I am suie you, will not hesitate to state it . in the publication-that the delay, since the tsth"of April,: in lay'Vng my Statement before the Public did not rest with ine„ but arose in" the main from'your situation and.de. sire to inquire rendering delay inevitable, Troth my desire to satisfy You by minute examination, and in parr from-my engagements interfering with some appointments to meet 'you. - When this, publication is made by yoth it is all that is required or wished upon the part of the Duke of lIEDFoRb, whose anxiety to - rescue his. brother's memory from the obloquy cast upon without foundation, by your publication, is equally. just and natural but in case you decline still to, publish what I haVe here suggested, I must beg to be informed -without, drby, that I -m;ty lay the. whole before the..Public,,io order-to counterad what has bek.'n published in the last and in a former Num ber of the Anti.jitcobin Review, as well as to re. move the prejudice raised by what you have pub. I am, Six, Your most obedient humble Servant, WILLIAM. ADAM. Any Letter or Packet addressed to Lincoln'4lknn will be sent to me. John Esz. • THE EXAMINATIONS OF WHICH* COPIES WERE TRANSMITTED TO. MR. BOWLES WITH THE LAST LETTER. yoreph flarrvue'll, fisherman at Woburn Park.—He says he has been seventeen years in the Duke of /3 v. a vo a o's service— That he succeeded 'to be fisherman at -Sparks's going away, and worked under hint live years before lie went away—That during all that time he must have known - every thing that was done at the ponds, as he visited them daily, and does so now— That, during all that period, he can take upoh. hiMself to say,' that no pond was ever emptied or ftshed'on a Sunday by any./11Imberof men—That he hirrp , elfnever fished on a Sun- •. day in the large ponds, unless to take out trimmers which :have been laid on a iYeek-day—That he takes the fish ou t o f the store-ponds for-the table sbinclitnes . 6n a Sunday. bin' this he does "alone—That•he never remembers, in all the time he has served the Duke of 13Feq . oitp, any number of labourers, or any labourers, being employed in clearing the fish=ponds of mud, oc. taking fish. 'from any erriptied'pond to a firltone, on a Sunday,- and he is sure no such thing ever was •d(!ne, as - he must have seen it if it hid, being -conifintly o'CCupied about the ponds, and nothing else---Ile says; the only work that has ever been done on a Sunday at the ponds has' been its casefof floods, .that he and two or three men have gone to let the water oil, to prevent tha floods from destroying the banks..• He remdmbers the emptying of Cowhill pond—he does not remember the year, but it was in the spring of the year—it was in April lie thinks—it was the year of the mutiny iri the fleet—he.remembers there ,were many Gentlemen, at Woburn Abbey at the time— That he is sure the fishing,it was nut on; a Sunday, ;And that there was. no work or hibout perfumed in, that pond on a Sunday at any time. 'After pond was tilled again, Drakelow pond was emptied, in the spring about ;Our years ago; and he is positive that no labour of fishing or clearing away, the mud was perturthed thete on a Sunday.: . . Joseph Hart we ll sa ys h e cannot read or write. This was takert,doWn by 'me from his narration, and read over to ;Urn' in the yresenee.of the Rev. Mr. Cartwright and'M r. Platt; who both attest. the same, as Joseph Hartwell does by put ting.his Mark to this paper. WILLIAM ADAM. EDMVND CARTWRIGHT, his Eni.v.Nin PLATT. JOSEPH HARTWULL. i!lark. Wchrn Abby, Aag. I;, 1803. William Fogarty. Has been here under Salmon and looking after, the men who worked under Salmon in the Duke of Bedford's work ever 'since 1795. Was here in 1797 %viler; .Cowhill pond • was emptied ; it was the only pond emptied that year.; the great pond rigar the Abbey was not emptied in i 797, but is now empty, and was emptied in 1802. • '- lie kept a book of the men's time; they began to empty Cowhillon a Monday, the 17th of April, as appears from the book : tie, is sure that the labourers were not employ4l in emptying the pond on a Sunday, but that the labour began ork ;a ;Monday . and ended. - on, the Wednesday : he sat up with another may to watch on the night between Tuesday.and , Wedneday, as the pond was not completely emptied on the .Tuesday, but on the Wedne4day it vmS, and the fish carried by thelabouttrs on those two days to the other ponds. WILLIAM FOGARTY. Taken down from Fogarty's (talon, and read over to him. by rrier • ' W 11.1.1 AM ADAM. igeUrn 40bey, Sunday, gib ifugusr, 1563. , ... Ill'illlant Dcidron, Wobut4 Town. Worked in the Park fo the Duke Of , Bedford for seven sears ; worked at Cowhil • pond at taking the tpud out, front the beginning to the en" -..-- of ; tiritjob, cutting drains its it and helping to clear it of mud. -. Never worked there on a Sunday ; never saw any body else wink there on a Sunday. .. ___ • ' Was not present at emptying the pond of water or at f 51 11; ingot' it. WILLIAM .t11)41.X.:•• Read over, as.in the other cases. his > 4 POULTON'. in the preseni.eOf WILLIAM inat 4. EDMUNDCARTNV!tLCILT, EDWARD PLATT. , ; 4: . . :yaw Gurnfy. Tool; cars of .the horses in the paddocks, ire . the centre df ' , which the Cowhill pon d i s, o f course he was on the spot - on Sundays. Been six teen years. i n the bu!te of -13edfOrdtsseryice, and seldom absent irons Woburn.. butißt o e n tti c e e m em be o rs ti t e l ( t i e i e n ntp li t i y s in t g im o c t cowhill pond i it never was . Never ab sent at all for tho last sevcrt years, even with the horses,till last / , ..., .....a,y-uay... Helped to carry the fish away, and carried twice up to the bason ; thinks it was on a Wednesday, but quite sure it was. not on Sunday. Never saw .any labour pectormed on the who w allsacnedr lea s t,sp s u pper, 0::: , ro: o n e G v a r e e t idr ponds th 4 () in n e a a ~,sS unday. w o t h h i. e i; rbr was'i se t,t onei).a( nui by one c e o t yn t , i se n: ac off course at i 4g t : i p l e e ht a re;i : ttei a i i :::. Who is now in Hampshire, of this meadows. It was . his a t h s e o; p h o e n i d d s a e y v s e , ry so d b a r y ea t ic h f rc a s e t t , ti d n i e ri s n a e t r : s 4 w . any body employed in the ponds e xcept ; h at one mail. letitns of the water. VI A read over to j ohn gurney in the satne thanker as that: to Joseph 1 - lactwell; A:Ain down by me ... . „. . TQIIN CURVEy, In the presence of; Ice. as before. th6firsz Abey p.th August, tSo3.• • . . Chance of Eversholt. Worked for the Duke ofßed• . foal in'the Park of Woburn for twelve yc:.rs, first und4 Collier, then tinder Mr. Farey ; commenced with_ Mr, Farey in March, iSoo : Cowhill pond was emptied while he was working under Collier, but not cleaned out does not remember the year. The-labour of emptying it was not on a Sunday ;•• he never knew Mr. employ- spy men • to work on a Sunday, except once When OA snow fell on then top of Woburn Abbey, and wasted so tact ;hat tiv pipes could not carry:it oft; and it run into tile rooms : tiOe not know that any body was employed in taking the Nit out on 3 .- Sintda ' y - is sure they were nut. When he 'helped to take out the fish of Cowhill pond it was not or a Sunday ; never was employed in clearing the pon . I of mu‘coti t Sun,. day, or saw any body else employed ::trout that or any other. business except lifting up the floating gates, that was done by Joseph Still, under Dowdeswell's direction. Read over as in Gurney's case. WILLIANI A,DAM. OHN' CHAN E. JVsburn Abbey, ivh Angus, lgoj'. Edward Mandl, aged eighty. He was 'parish clerk _Ad Woburn tier thirty years ; •appointed in 1770 ; resided in Woburn all the time i doeS nut rceollea any ticrsoriin 1797. a clergyman to whom he shewedthe church of Woburn, or with whom he had any particular conversation ; but ate -denies that •he ever said to any one that the lat , f; Luke of Bedford employed some hundreds of labOurers in tinptying the Great pond at the Abbey on a Sunday, or ever made Iris labourers work ou a Sunday at all; tlot no suLli tact. existed; and therefore he never could have said so, because it_ wiis not true ; and whoever said so is a villain tor brnibing his name up with so infamous a ialsehood. • - EDWARD MANSELL. Read over to Edward Mansell in the presence of L-DMUND CARTWRIGIrr• Edward lylansell who sig is a distinci man, iied the above, • his'memory and intellect petteet, ht. body s h a k e „ Dv as s and the asthma. I put down the words as hear his.didia" as possible, oecause it was objeded by Mr. Bowles that the diction of the letter to .`lr. Agutter adorded internal evi— deni:e of its not being the letter of Mansell I exa m i tu d , hurt as to the accoullt contained iti the letter, arid I learnt from him, as I had before from Mr. Cartwright, that he told his story to Mr. Cartwright, who put it in writing in ' substance, made his clerk copy it, and then Mansell signed it as he has done this paper: i1;40-4 Toithr, 13th August, 18,4. WILLIAM ADAM. Not being 'at Woburn Town at the time Mr. Adam saw Mansell; I took this paper to Mansell and read that part of it which is signed by him, which lid declared to be the saMe, that Mr. Adain had taken down trom what he said in presence of Mr. Cartwright, and he declared.to that kic never had held any such conversation and that he cot&kl'not, for that nothing of the ki n d had ever happened. 130 August, 1203, EDWARD PLATT. 07Iliam Whitbread resides at .Ridgemont ; came to work 25 the Du!:e's service about seven years agu i was under. Collier, but.not ernployed in emptying C.:ownill pond, not being con , cerned , that. time an the out-door work ; about five years. been employed in the out-door business,. and superintended men in the out-door work under Collier till 'Soo, and was then turned Over to Mr. Parer: in nioo was employed in . • superintending , the men in clearing the mud out of Drake-, low, from.the beginning to the end o f t h a t j o b ; n e ver diet any part of shat work on a Sunday, except setting a man to' watch at half wages, to see that no m i sc hi e f was d one ; ani sometimes, when heavy rains were, was obliged to take • than. with him to let off the water, but never employed men t) tab ou r on a. Sunday in , that or any other work, and never . `,