The Express.
London, England, 1867-11-22 00:00:00

MOW WATER AT LONDON ERTDOE.
_ .

TEN DAT —liorntog, Ilk 9a...,....Attern00n, Ith. Ont.
ID-gol3oll—Moiming, oh. Cres.._..Atiernoon, uh. am.

LO-VDON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22.

Ttu e Metropolitan Board of Works, that mag-
nified vestry which can do everything except
drain London, lies just now under the shadow
of a huge scandal. Its members assemble in an
atmosphere of suspicion, repeat the ugly things
said about them out of doors, and with surprising
facility of judgment come to the conclusion
that if there is not something in them, there
easily might be. Last Wednesday a long sitting
was occupied with oonOoring what should be
done about a rumour which had got abroad, im-
puting corrupt practices to one of the members of
the Board—Mr. F. DouLron, M.P. for Lambeth.
The matter was not then brought forward for the
first time, having been the subject of a miscella-
neous and very free conversation this day wee'c. On
Wednesday, however, Mr. DOULTON was present,
and the meeting was a special one to consider his
case. No ono appears to make any charge against
the hon. gentleman, the necessity of explanation
on his part having arisen from statements made in
the Bankruptcy Court by Mr. Foe:gess, one of
the contractors under the Board for the
Thames Embankment. Mr. FURNESS, when
under examination before the Registrar
of the Court, stated that he had paid a large sum
of money to two gentlemen, his sureties to the
Board as contractor, and that Mr. DOULTON had
shared it with them. It was natural, we fear we
must say, for them who read this statement and
believed it, to assume that the money received by
Mr. DOULTON was taken as the consideration for
the use of his influence as a member of the Board
to secure the acceptance of Mr. FURNESS'S tender;
and the fact that that gentleman was actually
employed to execute the work at a price I,gher
by 100,000/. than that for which other contractors
had offered to do it, was referred to as confirming
the suspicion.
It was this aspersion which Mr. DOULTON
undertook to meet on Wednesday, in the presence
of his colleagues. But before he rose Sir JOHN
THWATTES, the Chairman of the Board, called
attention to a statement concerning himself
which was contained in the published evidence of
Mr. FURNESS in the Court of Bankruptcy, and which
there was no difficulty whatever in proving incor-
rect, as Mr. FURNESS had admitted. Thus, before
the member for Lambeth opened his mouth, the
credibility of the source of the rumour to his
prejudice was seriously affected. As soon as he
was in possession of the audience, Mr. Doeuros
stated, that immediately upon hearing what had
been said of him in the Court of Bankruptcy, he
applied to the solicitor to the bankruptcy of Mr.
FURNESS to be allowed to deny it in the same court
upon oath—a course which that gentleman informed
him was impracticable. Having referred to the
inferences drawn from Mr. Fuforms'a evidence to
his disadvantage, Mr. Douvrox gave them a "firm,
" honest, and simple denial." The contract with
Mr. FURNESS was made fouryears ago, and what took
place with reference to the sureties was, according
to Mr. DouvroN, this :--" I introduced the *in-
" tractor to two gentlemen. I saw the contractor
" in conversation with gentlemen who on previous
" occasions had been his sureties, and they heard
" with surprise that ho had paid for the contract
" under this Board no less a sum than 20,0001.
" I told him it was ridiculous to pay that. I in-
" troduced him to ono of those two gentlemen,
" and he undertook to be surety for him for half
" he had paid on the previous contract ; but out
" of the money so received not one penny ever
" came into my possession." Mr. DOULTON, after
making this statement, read a letter which he had
received from Mr. Ft-Rana, in reply to one
which ho had addressed to him concerning
his evidence in bankruptcy. The hon. mem-
ber for Lambeth had inquired of him
what grounds he had for his statement that
he was a partner with the gentlemen who
took money for becoming sureties for the Embank-
ment contract. Mr. FURNESS replied as follows :
" If you will refer to my evidence, you will see
" that I do not state with any certainty as to
" the amount received by each. I certainly
" assumed that you were a partner with the
" sureties ; first, from the fact of the sureties
" being introduced by you to me; and secondly,
" from the fact of some of the bills bearing
" your signature or endorsement, and upon my
" requiring the sureties to renew some of the
" bills, they refused to renew unless you en-
" dorsed the renewals. Not knowing how the
" sum which I paid for the suretyship was dealt
" with, I naturally concluded you had an interest
"in the transaction." It thus appears that the
allegation which was the original ground of all the
insinuations and reflections made to Mr. Doovrox's
prejudice was a conjectural inference which its
author stated as a fact. If this were all, it might
perhaps not be worth while to carry the matter
further.

It was impossible, however, that the inquiry
should rest here. Allegations which had obtained