The Express.
London, England, 1865-06-22 00:00:00

rogif GOLD OHAINS.

..~ ...

• JOHN DROGDZNI3 GOLD GIV .ItD

[OHS BIitOCIDEN'S G OLD ALEIitiOHAINS.

rOiIIiBROGDZITSGOLDBP.OOOB ORLIN&

1.11:11111RIR I pat will eat - your friends at
matt ifkr tie °pers. W laletbers.

• ghe evisreo.

TO p
oosszaroNDitiftis..
Mitaetistoitio lotostiod tor TM Igor Lagos Zombi
Mar, sow Do et the Moo, Bormaite4irest. by Two
*Ate o• iv et pabissoura.

MAXMLILIST.
TinsMOM TVS MILIZICS WHIM& lidera O. A.
.11.1 WILMS lassdssiss iCsolsy sod Wiiiibt—BßOTßAß
9317:3r Mews. Sabers, lisskstsas, and_ Comptes : Mesdames
nowdon and
Stoars.—And OWN-ItTIM WORT=

N 01169 %.
InolT usk DNOLYNYZIPIIWO3 AND TIDDLIGTDINDB.
~ANBAN NA PODGY. Nam. D. ftedNalt. J. Broalleat.
E. Yandeolica.Morray,Dartales Ws. D.
gowicaalt Awl NW Oliver.—Aod AN AWL& APOLOGY.

SIOTANWIL.
Tint Symms, LI7CRESIA 11010 Cd. VOW%•
Od Drommood . Miss S. Mika —TES MAOIO witallt
Mum& 8110.0.4 Mk"
_sad LOW ben ed Com mg Ws.
Lae. —Ad Td TIMM OS DSZASION...Omumme M de.

NMI WA AT LONDON-21113GL
Two DAT ltarabta lb. Oli.....Albinkoon. lb. 1001.
TO4lolliol/ •••• Witubisi lb. blm....Alborboob. IX la.

XONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 22.

Ws pnblished• yesterday the complaint of
Messrs. BARRY Mumma respecting the treat-
ment to which they were subjected in Newgate
before being liberated on bail. To-day we have
to draw attention to a graver charge which they
have, on a different question, brought against the
police. It is contained, with such answer as the
police have seen fit to make to it, in a series of
letters which have passed between Messrs. BARRY
and Sir RICHARD MAYNE, copies of which have
been sent by the former to the press. It com-
mences with a letter of Messrs. BARRY, dated
March 4, the day after their release from prison on
bail, addressed to Superintendent BRARrotte, in
which they state their surprise to find that police-
men bad been stationed on their premise'. They
inquired by whose authority this had been done,
and for what purpose, and further asked an ex-
planation of the circumstance that certain locks
had been recently forced, in presence of Super-
intendent BRANFORD, by Sergeants HAreole and
Bsarr, of the City detective police. On March 5, the
police were removed from the premises, but it was
not till the 10th that any other reply was given to
the complaint. On that day Sir RICHARD MAYNE
addressed to Messrs. BARRY a letter, in which he
stated "that the police constables were stationed
" on your wharf at the request of Messrs. Hum-
" PURIM and Co., solicitors to the Fire Insurance
" Company, partly for protection to your property,
" as you were in custody, and there was no per-
" son in authority to take care of it, the premises
" being all open and exposed to any one who felt
" disposed to plunder. The locks mentioned were
" three, in the drawee of a table in your office,
" the keys of which could not be found by the
" City police officers either on yourselves, when
" apprehended, or elsewhere. A locksmith was
" employed to pick these locks by order of the
" solicitor for the prosecution. The superin-
" tendent was present at the time the drawers
" were opened." Meantime, on Bth March,
Messrs. BARRY bad, by letter to Sir It.
MAYes, preferred another charge against
the subordinates of his force. They complained
that a constable of the name of DYER had stated
to one of their servants that " however the prose-
cution might end, Messrs. BARRY would have to
" leave the country, but he would find the Incur-
" ante Companies very nice people to work for, and
" no doubt would get a good situation for life if
" he chose to open his mouth ;" and that the same
DYER had indirectly offered another of their men
1001. or 2001. if he would give evidence for the
prosecution. To this Sir R. MAYNE, on 14th of
March, replied that DYER was a constable em-
ployed to make inquiry on the charges against
Messrs. BARRY, but that be denied having offered
money to any person to give evidence, and Sir It.
MAYNE added that he saw no reason to suppose
that DYER exceeded his duty or acted improperly,
but that, if charged before a magistrate with
violation of his duty, he should be directed to
appear to answer for his conduct. To these two
letters of Sir R. MAINE, Messrs. BARRY, on 30th
March, made answer. They state, in regard to the
excuse for the police being placed in charge of their
premises, that there was no pretence for the alle-
gation that these were left open and subject to no
authority, since they themselves had placed their
wharf, prior to their arrest, under the care of
Messrs. HONEY and HUMPHREY, of Ironmonger-
lane, who, with Mr. F. T. BARRY, possessed full
authority to act. With regard to the charge
against DYER, they observe that it was not of
directly offering money for evidence, but of sug-
gesting a reward, and indirectly offering money,
neither of which charges his denial met. They
declined, however, to make a charge before a
magistrate, because in their opinion the offence
ought to be investigated by the heads of the depart-
ment, and not at the cost of private individuals.
With this the correspondence ends.
It cannot be concealed that these accusations
against the police involve matter of weighty import
to the public as well as to Messrs. BARRY, and
that they are not satisfactorily refuted by the
answers Sir R. MAINE has as yet made. Messrs.
BARRY, while their conduct was under investi-
gation, were still presumably innocent; a presump-
tion which is confirmed, not created, by the feet
that they have since been found not guilty of any
crime, though subject to censure for carelessness.
But the fact of their conduct being under investi-
gation did not divest them of their rights of pro-
perty, nor of the protection of the law. Meri-
ton's Wharf was still theirs, and every one entering
it without their permission, or without warrant
from a magistrate, was a trespasser. Still more
sacred is the security of drawers in a private
counting-house. To break open these, by order
or in presence of a superintendent of police, is a
most heinous offence, unless proper authority has
been obtained. But we regret to observe that
Sir RICHARD MAINE does not defend either
set on the ground of his possession of legal war-
rants. He puts his justification on "the request
"of the solicitors for the prosecution," the fact of
the premises being left unprotected, and the cir-
cumstance that the locks were picked, not forced,
and in presence of, but not by order of,
his superintendent. Such excuses are inadmis-
sible. The solicitors for the prosecution had no