The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1888-06-23 00:00:00

BOARD OF WORKS SCANDAL.

The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into
the proceedings of the Metropolitan Board of Works
sat again on Tuesday at the Sessions House, West-
minster. Lord Herschell presided; the other Com-
missioners were in attendance; and the same counsel
appeared as before.
Mr. Villiers was recalled, and admitted that he
went to Mr. Alderman Saunders to ask his favourable
consideration in respect of the witness's offer for the
Pavilion site, prior to that offer being accepted by the
board. The witness said he thought ha received some
information that Alderman Saunders would be likely
to assist him in the matter, and it was subsequent to
this that he decided to throw up Messrs. Florence and
Isaacs as architects, and to appoint Mr. Saunders.
The witness was closely cross-examined upon his
former evidence by Mr. Bosanquet, and in reply to
questions he said he tendered £450 per annum for a
site in Shaftesbury-avenue, and was very much sur-
prised and annoyed to find that afterwards the site
was let to Mr. Hobson for £350 a year. He heard
Hobson say to Robertson, "That's a good morning's
work, Tommy," as be received a percentage upon the
rental. (Laughter.) The witness then arrived at the
conclusion that Robertson had " sold " him, for he
could not see how Hobson got the land.
Mr. Edward Ryde, architect and surveyor, of Great
George-street, Westminster, explained the circum-
stances under which he was asked to act as arbitrator
between Goddard and a Mr. Marrable, now deceased.
Marrable was formerly in the architect's department
of the Board of Works, but left some years ago, and
subsequently set up in business for himself. After
that Goddard, who remained in the superintendent.
architect's office, wrote to Marrable and mentioned
that the Board were about to buy a large number of
sites for the purposes of the Thames Embankment,
and that if Marrable would agree to give him one-
third of the fees, he could send him lots of clients,
who, under these circumstances, would get a larger
amount of compensation than they otherwise would
do. It was in respect of a dispute about transactions
arising out of this proposal that witness was applied
to by Marrable to arbitrate, but he thought the
transaction an improper one, and he declined to act
in the matter.

Mr. Jubal Webb, a member of the Board for 16
months, and a former member of the Kensington
Vestry, said he knew a Mr. Boucher, who represented
Kensington, and shortly after his election a question
arose as to his having, while a candidate for the
Board, taken a plot of land in Goulstone-strect,
Whitechapel, on which he was erecting artisans'
dwellings. Boucher was the builder, and had taken
the land as the highest tenderer. The minutes of the
Board stated that the transaction was by private
treaty. fhe witness denied that he had had any
pecuniary transactions with Goddard or Robertson.
Mr. Phillips, a member of the Board of Works, was
then called, and denied having had any pecuniary
transactions either with Goddard or Robertson,
although he purchased of Mr. Hobson a plot of land
in Clerkenwell-road, which had been originally bought
of the Board. Robertson mentioned the matter to
him first. _

......
Mr. William Boucher said he had been a member of
the Board two years and a half. He tendered a year
and a half before that for a site in Goulston-street on
which to erect artisans' dwellings. Knew Robertson
and Goddard casually. The Board agreed to his erect-
ing shops on the ground floor. No money ever
passed between him and any member or cifficer of the
Board.
Questioned by Mr. Studd on behalf of the Inquiry
Committee, the witness said he had no confidence in
Robertson (who was no friend of hie), and the tender
he sent in he sealed and addressed to the chairman.
Mr. William Glamfield, publican, was next exa-
mined, and said he was formerly yearly tenant of the
White Lion public-house, in Hemming's-row, which
had been acquired by the Board of Works for the
Charing-cross-road improvement. The witness was
paid £5OO compensation on quitting, and on the same
day that he left he went as tenant of the Board into
the occupation of the Crystal Palace public-house,
also in Hemming's-row, at £5 a month. The witness
had been the tenant since, and in consideration of the
advice Mr. Goddard, cen., gave him in the matter of
compensation he gave Mr. Goddard, jun., £2O. God-
dard, sen., said he had no legal claim whatever
against the Board, but under his advice he wrote a
letter to the Board, with the result he had mentioned.
Also gave Goddard, jun., £5 when he went to the
Crystal Palace. Goddard used occasionally to visit
and dine at his house.

Lord Herschell : Is Goddard, jun., still in the
employ of the Board?
Mr. Meadows White: Yes, my lord. (Sensation.)

Lord Herschell : Had he not better be sent for?

Mr. White then directed that a messenger should
be despatched requiring his attendance; and after
some further documentary evidence the court ad-
journed for luncheon, Goddard, jun., not having then
put in an appearance.
After luncheon the builder, William Pitt, was re-
called, and, correcting some portion of his previous
evidence, said he now found that in connection with
the York-street property, which he bought of the
Board, he gave Robertson £BOO instead of £6OO, as
he formerly stated. The witness also produced a
document showing the whole of his pecuniary trans-
actions with Robertson, and was questioned upon it
by Lord II( rschell in detail. He said that on one
occasion Mrs. Robertson had lent him £3OO when he
was in want of money. Robertson told him she
would lend it him. He gave Robertson a cheque,
payable to a Mrs. Curtis, for £5OO, because Robertson
asked him to do so. Did not even know Mrs. Curtis,
but was afterwards paid back by Robertson Jn two
cheques of £2OO and £3OO respectively, drawn by
William Gray. Did not know where John Gray was
at the present time. He knew a Mr. Wells, formerly
Df the Commercial Iron Works, Shoreditch, but did
not know where he was now.
Mr. Studd mentioned that Mr. Fowler had said, in
the course of his evidence, that he knew Wells, and
possibly he might be able to furnish the Commission
with his address.
Being questioned by Mr. Studd witness said he had
done work for Mr. Millwood, Mr. Thomas, and Mr.
Maddox, officials of the Board. His account against
Millwood, who was in the architect's department, and
who used to examine the witness's work, came to
EH Bs. 21d., and he voluntarily made him a present
of it. (Laughter.) Mr. Thomas paid him a cheque
for the work he did, but Maddox never paid him an
account of some £3 odd. Had not done any work
for Mr. Walker.

Lord Herschell pressed the witness for a reason
why he made Millwood the present, but he was unable
to give one beyond that contained in the statement
that he examined his work. He had done work for
Mr. Campion, another official, who used to check his
accounts, and made him a present of it. Had also
done work at the private house of Mr. Driver, another
official, and made him a present of it for his kindness
in introducing him to the Board of Works. Had also
done work for Mr. Fry.
Did Mr. Fry inspect the work ?—No; he gave me a
cheque.

"ADAM was the only man who never had a father'
He was made-well, little boy, what do you wish to
say ? " enquired a Sunday School teacher. "Pbs e,
sir, there was another," observed the pupil. "Who v 8
that ? " asked the teacher. "Joshua, the on of none,'
replied the pupil.