The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-06 00:00:00

OF THE MAIN DRAINAGE WORKS.

Mr. Mir,r,Tlß, M.P., moved the following resolution :
" That in consequence of the near completion of the main
drainage works, it be referred to the Main Drainage Com-
mittee to consider the propriety of granting a special remu-
neration to the engineer and assistant-ongineers, and that
they report their recommendation thereon to this board."—
In doing so he said that the main drainage works had reached
so near a completion that it was time that they should take
into consideration the extra services of their chief engineer
and his assistants in this work. They must all admit that
this was the greatest work of the time, and that it would be
considered so by generaiions to come. It had been acknow-

• • -
'edged so by both branches of the Legislature, and even
Royalty itself, in the person of the Prince of Wales, had
recognised the fact. He would not propose any sum, but
would simply move that the subject be referred to the Main
Drainage Committee. The salary of Mr. Bazalgette was
only £1,500 a year,with £2OO a year for travelling expenses,
and when they considered what the amount of only 1 per
cent. on such gigantic work would come to they would
feel that the salary of the engineer was not an adequate
compensation for the labour and responsibility thrown upon
him. It had been suggested that they should wait until
the works were completed, but he thought that, if their
officers were entitled to any extra remuneration, they ought
to have it at once and not in the course of two years' time.
Mr. I'm, M.P., seconded the motion, and said that he
agreed with Mr. Miller in the main as to what he had said,
but there were points on which he differed. Nevertheless it
was a fact that their work had been done as well as any work
in the world had been done, and at a very low price. He
thought the subject was one which ought to be fully in-
quired into, and therefore felt the greatest pleasure in voting
that the question be fully inquired into by a committee.
Mr. LEGGE supported the motion.
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR admitted the admirable manner in
which Mr. Bazalgette and his three coadjutors had done their
work, but he thought as business men they ought to wait
till the works were complete and worked successfully before
they gave their officers gratuities. He denied that there
was any implied promise on the part of the Beard to give
their officers gratuities, for they had been receiving their
salaries, and whatever was given them beyond them would
be entirely voluntary. His friend had said that he would
not propose any sum, but leave that to the committee ; but
the sum has been named, and he (Mr. Taylor) was alarmed
at the amount. Ho suggested that the question should be
postponed until the works'wero completed. He considered
that when it was contemplated to propose to give the
engineer a sum of £lo,ooo (Oh, oh!)—they ought to pause
before they proposed. to let the matter go to a committee.

He admitted the ability and labour which had been dis-
played in carrying out the works, but at the same time ho
thought the time was not appropriate for taking such a step.
He movedas an amendment--" That on the completion and
development of the main drainage works, it be referred to
the Main Drainage Committee to consider the ,propriety of
granting a special remuneration to the engineer and assist-
ant engineers, and that they report their recommendation
to the board."
Mr. BROOKER seconded the amendment.

Mr. COLLINSON supported the original motion.

Mr. DOULTON, M.P., was surprised that any opposition
should be made to the motion. They had invited the Prince
of Wales to open the main drainage works, and he thought
that the works-were near enough to completion to justify
them in considering the services of the engineers.
Mr. FREEMAN approved the matter going before the com-
mittee, but at the same time thought they had better wait.
until the costs were wound up, because then the Board
would be in a position to vote a much larger and substan-

'•al gratuity than at the present moment.

Mr. SAMUDA supported the motion, and considered that
if carried it would be:with:the intention of its being carried
out at once.

Mr. MTEryn replied, and the amendment.was negatived.
The original motion was then carried by a majority of 23
to 8.

The routine business was then disposed of, and the Board
adjourned.

The Charge of Conspiracy to Defraud
Insurance Offices,

Yesterday Mr. John George Barry and Mr. Alfred'Barry,
brothers, wharfingers at Meriton's Wharf, Bermondsey, and
three of their foremen, Thorne, Arnett, and Sedgwick, again
surrendered to their recognisances before Mr. Alderman
Stone, at the justice-room of the Mansion-house, on the
charge in effect of conspiring together to defraud the Royal
Exchange and other insurance offices in the city of London
of large sums of money by, as is alleged, falsely representing
that certain commodities, but principally jute, in consider-
able quantities, had been destroyed at the fires which oc-
curred at their wharf in June and November last.
Mr. Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Poland, instructed by Messrs.
Humphreys and Morgan, solicitors, Newgate-street, again
conducted therprosecution ; Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, in-
structed by Messrs. Tilleard, Golden, and Holmes, Old
Jewry, defended the brothers Barry, Mr. Sergeant Tindal
Atkinson the defendant Thorne, and Mr. Moss, solicitor,
of Gracechurch-street, the two other defendants.
The evidence taken atthe previous examination, and now
reduced to the form of depositions, was read over to the
various witnesses by Mr. Oke, the chief clerk, and signed
by them, a process which occupied an hour. The evidence
in all its material parts has already been reported.
Mr. Giffard, Q.C., upon the whole of the evidence, as
being now complete, asked to have the defendants com-
mitted for trial on the charges of larceny, conspiracy, and
the statutable offence of obtaining money by false pretences,
as applicable to both the June and the November fires.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, for the Messrs. Barry, said he
did not propose to offer-any observations to the Bench
against those gentlemen being committed tor trial. An
enormous amount of purely technical evidence would have
to be given at the trial, and he made no objection to the
formal manner of stating the charges on which it was pro-
posed to commit his clients. With reference to the element
of fraud, a grave question would arise hereafter as to the
intention with which the Messrs. Barry acted in the man-
agement of their business after the vast amount of confusion
consequent upon a great fire, and it would be the duty of
those who represented them as counsel upon their trial to
sift the evidence from which intention might be inferred
to the bottom. In the enormous pressure of business con-
sequent upon the fires there might have been and were
irregularities; but what he should have to contend on the
trial was that there was no fraudulent intention on the
part of any of the persons charged, and he hoped, in com-
mon with every gentleman who had known the Messrs.
Barry for many years, to be able to convince the jury who
would have to try them of their complete innocence of any
intention to deceive.
Mr. Sergeant Tindal Atkinson submitted that, as re-
spected the defendant Thorne, whom he represented, there
was not a shred of evidence to justify his being sent for
trial, and that unless the Alderman was satisfied that the
evidence as respected him was likely to find credence with
a jury it would be cruel to expose him to the ordeal of a
trial. He was a man with 30 years' good character, and
whatever he might have done in the matters under consi-
deration he had simply obeyed the orders of his principals
and acted in the ordinary way of his duty.
Mr. Alderman STONE said, in his opinion, having gone
through the matter with Mr. Oke, the chief clerk, and
having carefully considered the evidence, there was suffi-
cient to justify him in sending all the defendants for trial.
Mr. Oke, the chief clerk, at the request of the Alderman,
told the defendants that as to tho June fire they would be
charged with feloniously stealing 164 bales of jute belong-
ing to Mr. Theodore Baxter or to Messrs. Henry Clark
and others. They would also be charged, under the 24th
and 25th of Victoria, cap. 96, with causing and procuring,
by false pretences, to be paid by the London and Lanca-
shire Fire Insurance Company to Mr. Baxter a check for
£313 ss. 4d., with intent to defraud. There would be a
like charge of procuring a check for £1,275 ss. 10d. to be
paid by the North British and Mercantile Insurance Com-
pany to Messrs. Laing and Merridew, with intent to de-
fraud ; and a similar charge in respect to a check for
£1,594 2s. 3d. paid by the London Assurance Corporation
to Messrs. Laing and Merridew. They would likewise be
charged with conspiring to falsely represent that large
quantities of goods of Mr. Baxter, Messrs. Clark, Messrs.
Laing and Merridew, and others at Meriton's Wharf, were
burnt and destroyed, with intent to defraud the London.
and Lancashire, the North British and Mercantile, the
London Assurance, and divers other insurance companies.
They would further be charged with conspiring to steal a
large number of bales of jute and a large quantity of seed
belonging to Mr. Baxter, Messrs. Clark, Messrs. Laing and
Merridew, and others ; and generally with conspiring to
cheat and defraud the same persons of their goods. They
would also be charged with conspiring to obtain from the
North British and Mercantile, the London Assurance, the
London and Lancashire and other companies, divers checks
and sums of money, with intent to defraud them. As to
the November fire, they would be charged with feloniously
stealing 175 bales of jute, the goods of Mr. Baxter or of
Messrs. Clark ; and 500 bales of jute, belonging to Messrs.
Trueman and Rouse. They would also be accused of con-
spiring to falsely represent that large quantities of goods of
Messrs. Perry and Waaggen, the City Bank, Messrs. Rose,
Graham, and Wilson, Messrs. Trueman and Rouse, Messrs.
Scheilizzi and Co., and other persons at Meriton's Wharf,
were burnt and destroyed, with intent to defraud the Royal
Insurance Company, Lambert Pole and others, Charles
Richard Pole, the London Assurance, the Liverpool and
London, and Globe, Sir John Musgrove and others, the
North British and Mercantile, the Manchester, the Royal
Exchange, the Northern, and divers othei insurance com-
panies. They would be accused of conspiring to publish
false lists of the goods which were burnt and destroyed and
of the goods saved from the November fire, and so to de-
ceive and defraud the same insurance companies ; of con-
spiring to steal a large number of bales of jute and large
quantities of seed and rice belonging to Mr. Baxter, Messrs.
Clark, Messrs. Perry and Waaggen, the City Bank, Messrs.
Trueman and Rouse, Messrs. Scheilizzi and Co., Messrs.
Rose, Graham, and Wilson, and other persons ; and to ob-
tain from certain insurance companies named divers checks
and sums of money with intent to defraud them. They
would further be charged with causing and procuring by
false pretences to be paid checks for the following
amounts : To Messrs. Rose, Graham, and. Wilson,
£1,343 odd by the North British and Mercantile;
£1,107 odd by the Queen ; and £513 10s. 10d. by the
Manchester, with intent to defraud. They would
also be accused, under the same Act, with causing and pro-
curing, by false pretences, to be paid cheques to Messrs.
Scheilizzi and Co.—namely, £6,310 odd by the:Northern,
£6,310 odd by the Royal Exchange, £2,103 odd by the
Royal, and £4,206 14s. odd by the North British and Mer-
cantile, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Alderman Stone then committed the defendants for
trial at the Central Criminal Court, but admitted them to
bail in the meantime—the Messrs. Barry, with their sure-
ties, in £ll,OOO in all; the defendant Thorne in two sure-
ties in £1,000; and each of the defendants Arnett and Sedg-
wick, with two sureties, in £5OO.
The whole bail given amounted to £13,000. The sureties
for Mr. John George Barry, described as of Sydenham-
lodge, Foot's Cray, Kent, wore Mr. James Morley, of Green-
street-house, East Ham, Essex, gentleman, and Mr. Fran-
cis Tress Barry, of the Clock-house, Beckenham, merchant.
Those for Mr. Alfred Barry, described as of Elmstone-houso,
Beckenham, were Mr. Alexander Rose, of Stamford-hill,
broker, and Mr. Charles Delmar, wine merchant, of Dart-
moor-terrace, Blackheath.

MR. HENRY RUSSELL.—The Musical World says:
We are given, on good authority, to understand
that among the candidates named for the knighthood
which, it is said, is intended to be conferred on a member
of the musical profession, is Mr. Henry Russell, and that
his chances of receiving the honour are among the best.
On the ground of the numerous popular and national melo-
dies, hearth-songs and heart-songs, with which that com-
poser has endowed the people of this country, the choice is
one plainly justified by special and distinct claims, no less
than by a name of widespread popularity. Men who, like
Dibdin, have helped by their songs to awaken and keep
alive in the hearts of the people wholesome and patriotic
sentiments, confer a national benefit which deserves an
emphatic recognition." We may add that the composer of
such world-wide melodies as "Cheer, Boys, Cheer," "A
Life on the Ocean Wave," "I'm Afloat," "Woodman,
Spare that Tree," "The Ivy Green," "There's a Good
Time Coming, Boys," " The Maniac," " The Gambler's
Wife," "The Ship on Fire," "The Newfoundland Dog,"
" Far, far upon the sea," " To tho West," " Tho Old Arm
Chair," and, we believe, 600 other popular airs, is entitled
to some national mark of honour ; and we are sure the
people, who have been so greatly charmed, and not unfre-
quently so beneficially moved, by Mr. Russell's composi-

• _
tions, would rejoice that honour was done to a man whose
compositions and whose singing have delighted the inha-
bitants of all parts of the world where our native tongue
is spoken.

THE CHARGE AGAINST THE EARL OF SHAFTES-
, BURY'S STEWARD.—Mr. Waters appeared before the
Sherborne magistrates on Thursday to answer the charge
of misapplying the moneys of the Earl of Shaftesbury whilst
acting in the capacity of steward. On account of the death
of Mrs. Lewis, the wife of Mr. Waters's solicitor, the case
was postponed till the 30th inst., the recognisances of the
alleged defaulter being enlarged.
Al CADVERTISEMENT.I-110110Way'S Ointment and Pills.—
varieties of ulcerations, bad legs, sores, wounds, and
eruptions can be cured by the diligent use of this cooling,
soothing, and healing unguent. The old and often failing
fashion of strapping the edges of ulcers together with
plasters has entirely given way before the more reasonable
treatment by Holloway's ointment, which builds up from
the bottom of the :wound with sound and healthy granula-
tions ; these gradually grow till they reach the level of the
surface, then contract, harden, and immediately become
covered with a new and wholesome skin. The proper ap-
plication of this ointment diminishes the inflammation,
causes the unhealthy discharge first to grow thick, then to
cease. The pills should be taken so as to act in unison
with the ojßtment.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TlMES.—There is a good deal to be learnt from
the case of Mr. Edmunds, if any one were disposed
fairly and impartially to consider it. It discloses a
gross abuse of patronage, and though it acquits Lord
Brougham of any blame, the transactions between
Mr. Edmunds and James and William Brougham
really amounted to the sale of an office under cir-
cumstances as discreditable as could well be imagined.
It is bad enough when an office is sold for a sum of
money paid down at the time, but it is a great deal
worse when an office is sold for an annuity, and thus
the demands of the creditor upon his debtor are
perpetuated during its whole tenure. The evils of
such a transaction are not to be measured by the
betrayal of public trust which it involves ; they go
much further, and lead to the creation of fresh and
even more hateful offences. The man who obtains
his office ty means of a violation of public trust on
the part of the person conferring it, or his friends,
feels disposed to indemnify himself for the plunder
he has suffered by plundering the public in his turn ;
the dishonesty of his superiors is contagious, and he
considers that he has purchased, not so much the
right to exercise the public office as to levy contri-
butions on all who come within his power. Thus,
corruption begets corruption, and iniquity is the
parent of iniquity. llad Mr. Edmunds obtained his
appointment under ordinary conditions, he would
probably have acted under it with ordinary fairness
and integrity, but the mind naturally revolts against
such extortion, and the transition is an easy one
from indignation at the loss to a determination to
recover it. Again, the case well illustrates the enor-
mous evils which may flow from a lax administration
of Government offices. Certainly we, in common
with most of our readers, believed that all moneys
received on behalf of the public were protected
from embezzlement by every contrivance which
the wit of man could suggest, and that if our
taxes were heavy, at any rate every possible
precaution was taken to prevent their miscarry-
mg in the hands of those who received them.
On this point the report of the committee is
very instructive. The committee, it seems, were
at a loss to understood how Mr. Edmunds should
suddenly discontinue payments he had been in the
habit of making on behalf of the public, and for
twelve years afterwards neither have paid over nor
even accounted for the public money in his hands,
and that yet no notice whatever should have been
taken of the default. They received evidence from
Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Arbuthnott,
from the Treasury. These gentlemen stated that
there was no check whatever upon Mr. Edmunds in
his Office of Clerk of the Patents. Mr. Gladstone
said that no audit was provided by the Act, and that
there would be no check beyond the oath of the
Clerk of the Patents, which nobody seems to ,have
been bound to administer. It is, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer says, the " true description of the
Clerk of the Patents, that he may hold in his hands
just as much public money as he thinks fit, and if he
pays nothing at all there are no means of calling
him to account for such non-payment." The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer also stated that " as regards
the custody of money and accounting for money the
present state of the law is very deficient indeed, not
with respect to the great branches of revenue, but
with respect to the miscellaneous heads of receipt
relating to a great variety of funds which come into
the hands of public officers without belonging to
the public." Nobody can accuse the officers of the
Treasury of want of candour in the statements they
have made, but we certainly should be glad to hear
how it has come to pass that such a state of
things has been allowed to continue. That it
will be amended henceforth with all speed we
take for granted ; but that it should have been
allowed to remain hitherto without amendment
seems to us, in the absence of evidence, a thing
inexplicable. Perhaps, when we come to see the
evidence we shall find some satisfactory reason
why the Treasury has neglected to enforce the
same rules for the protection of the revenue
against the frauds of persons receiving money on
behalf of the public as are practised with so much
success in the case of the collection of the ordinary
revenue. We can only say that we have never
heard a statement more startling or more unwel-
come. We had been weak enough to suppose that
we might sleep secure under the wing of Mr. Glad-
stone, and that though he could not be supposed to
pry into every detail of management, or be answer-
able for the pecuniary honesty of every clerk, we
might feel the utmost confidence that all which the
most untiring vigilance and the most skilful or-
ganisation could effect would be done in order to
protect us from the least risk of plunder or pecula-
tion. Misled, probably, by the immense activity
which Mr. Gladstone has shown in investigating all
the hidden and untrodden paths of finance, we pre-
sumed that with the open ones he would be at least
equally familiar. We have been lulled to sleep, and
awake at last to the conclusion that though con-
fidence is a plant of slow growth it is one of easy
decay. How unfortunate the negligence has been
for the public service a very few words will suffice to
show. Had Mr. Edmunds been subjected to the
proper control and supervision to which all public
officers ought to be submitted, he could never have
been guilty of the embezzlement which has been re-
cently the subject of investigation. We cannot, in=
deed, sympathise with him when he complains of
the want of audit as a personal grievance to him-
self. We think that it is not unreasonable to ask
that a public officer should be honest without the
compulsion of law, or that, if he is not, he should
rather take the blame to himself than impute it to
the carelessness of the Legislature. But how much
evil would have been spared had the simple pre-
cautions which are found so effective in the other
Revenue Offices been applied here ! Had there been
no peculation, there would have been no resigna-
tion under an understanding ; no question as to the
propriety of suspending legal proceedings ; no con-
cealment for the purpose of procuring Mr. Edmunds
a pension ; and the country would have escaped the
pain of seeing the first judge of the land censured
by a tribunal consisting partly of his colleagues and
political friends. A number of causes have com-
bined to create this great mischief—the cupidity of
some members of the Brougham family; the low
moral standard upon which Mr. Edmunds seems
to have acted; and the want of any check on a
person so covetous and so unscrupulous, such as the
public had a right to expect.
POST.—The much-looked-for report on the Ed-
munds committee suggests two distinct lines of con-
sideration. On the one hand it exhibits the delin-
quency of Mr. Edmunds, the exoneration of Lord
Brougham, and the grievous mistake of Lord West-
bury. On the other it discloses defects in the control
and supervision of the public accounts which reflect
the greatest possible discredit upon the heads of the
particular department to which Mr. Edmunds late
office belongs. The report itself has already been
summarised in this journal, so that we need not here
recapitulate the facts. Our duty is that of comment
rather than of analysis. The investigation of the
committee seems to have been thorough and fair,
and the report is drawn up with great candour and
ability. Considering how large a number of cabinet
and ex-cabinet ministers were on the committee, it
must be acknowledged that all parties concerned—
that is to say, the public, the Lord Chancellor, and
Mr. Edmunds—had every possible chance of fair
consideration. The men concerned in the inquiry
were of the highest public station, of great respon-
sibility, and of practical acquaintance with the de-
tails of official business. Their report is therefore
entitled to public confidence ; and whatever be the
consequences to which it may lead, the culpable
parties have only themselves to blame. The faults
of Mr. Edmunds are the most serious that can be
laid to the charge of a public servant. He was en-
trusted with several distinct offices, and he drew
from them a large aggregate income. A vast
amount of public money passed through his
hands every year, and his duty was to keep the
accounts with scrupulous accuracy, and to accept
no advantage from his position but that openly
awarded to him in the shape of salary. In all this
he failed. He not only did not account for all the
moneys which passed through his hands, but he
applied a considerable portion to his private use,
and further trafficked in various unlawful profits
on stamps, and combined with one of his subordi-
nates in carrying on an ingenious system of mal-
versation. These misdoings at last come to light,
and Mr. Edmunds is shown to be a debtor to the
public to the extent of 117,000. In defending
himself against the charges of the able gentlemen
who investigated his accounts, Mr. Edmunds thought
proper to bring in the name of Lord Brougham in
a manner which led the public to suppose that that
illustrious nobleman had given him the office of
Clerk of the Patents on an understanding that his
lordship was to acquire thereby a beneficial interest
for himself. When the statement was first made
public it was generally distrusted. People were un-
willing to believe that so popular a name could be
tarnished by transactions so unworthy. And they
were right. A published affidavit by Lord Brougham
shows that throughout he acted in the most disin-
terested way ; that he abolished a sinecure of £4,000
a year, and reduced it to a working position of
£6OO ; that he never had, and never could have,
any advantage in any arrangement made by Mr.
Edmunds with anybody for the appropriation of
any part of that gentleman's salary. The report of
the committee confirms all this, and leaves the repu-
tation of the noble lord without spot or blemish of
any kind in relation to this matter. Not the least
of the duties of the select committee was that of
expressing, for the guidance of the public, some
opinion on the conduct of the Lord Chancellor.
It was known that when Lord Westbury proposed
to refer the question of Mr. Edmunds' retiring

pension to the usual quarter for consideration,
he was perfectly aware of that person's defal-
cations. And the questions naturally arose, WV
should Mr. Edmunds' delinquencies be passed over
sub silentio? Is not a pension an acknowledgment
of faithful service ? By what process can gr.
Edmunds have been proved faithful ? And what sre
the grounds of his pension ? The public would
have been in doubt to this day on these questions
had not one of the Chancellor's own sons been
gazetted to the post which Mr. Edmunds vacated.
Suspicion thereupon arose that the delinquen.
clerk had been allowed to back out quietly in
order to make a desirable vacancy for Aft'
Slingsby Bethell. How far this is correct there. are
no adequate means of judging. The comnutte?
wisely makes no report of probable motives. But
emphatically says that it does not concur in the vlel
which the Chancellor took of his duty. In fall' I
conveys a severe censure on the Chancellor. tue,
most indulgent construction of language cannot
make less of it. But the terms in which the commit"
tee speak are obscure and almost contradictory
First, a passage is proposed in the draft report which
reflects in severe language upon Lord Westbury
But that is put aside by a majority of one in favour
of an amendment moved by Lord Taunton. This
amendment is so stated by the gentleman entrusted
with the drawing up of the report as to leave the.
censure substantially as the original draft had stated
it. Misled either by the ambiguity or exaggeration
of the passage, most of our contemporaries livo.t_
yesterday as if a heavy practical censure had so
.1.5
credited the Chancellor's conduct as to leave him
no longer in possession of the public confidence'
Lord Derbytook the earliest opportunity of correct f
ing that misimpression, and stated, in the House of
Lords last night, that the report was not intend
to express more than that the noble lord had cow'
witted an error of judgment, and had taken a wrl
view of his duty ; and he assured the house
both the minority and the majority were perfee.q,
prepared to acquit him of being actuated by 113,,
proper or unworthy motives. This explanation
be received with great satisfaction, and will disP.°s
the public to receive with greater consideratwnd
whatever•statement Lord Westbury may feel bounblin
to make upon the subject. That he owes it to :
self to take some notice of it is universally felt ; bin"
there can be no disposition on the part of the pelf
to construe harshly a mistaken line of duty.
whatever may be the consequences of this incl.
to the several parties concerned, one thing is certa';'
that there must immediately be some amended sYlr
tern of auditing the Treasury accounts. If a Prnieu.
check on the accounts of the Patent-office had be
maintained, Mr. Edmunds' frauds would have been
impossible. The worst of it is that we do not kioci;
that the same carelessness and want of proper
01 ;the
do not prevail in many other departments
public accounts. Some assurance of greater vind
lance in future the public have a right to expect, Its
it is to be hoped that it may not be long before
shock to public confidence is abated by an imPrnle
system of audit.