The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY Evil:Am), MAY 30, 1565.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET

A BRUTAL HUSBAND.—John Gleeson, a bootmaker, was
brought before Mr. Tyrwhitt, on a warrant, by Gordon,
33 C, charged with assaulting his wife, Mary Gleeson.
The complainant, a respectable-looking woman, said—
The prisoner is my husband. I have been away from him
for three years, supporting my children by my work. On
Sunday fortnight he came to my mother's while I was
there, he being half-tipsy at the time. I left the place to
avoid him, and he afterwards went to my home, 71, Wells-
street—poor as it is—broke open the door. and took pos-
session of the place. He then ordered me out, and beat
me, and said if I did not go out he would break my neck,
and if I brought any one in to protect me he would kill
them. I have not had a penny from him for three years,
and he spends his time • in drunkenness and lives on
prostitution. He tries his utmost to turn me out of the
little bit of bread I earn.

Prisoner—l found her with a man, and she left my home.
The Wife—lt is false. lam now sleeping on the floor,
and my youngest child is elsewhere in consequence. Ido
not wish to harm my husband. All I wish for is protec-
tion.

Wm. Gordon, 33 C—l apprehended the prisoner, whom
I have known for three years, yesterday. He has fre-
quently been convicted of felony, and for passing counter-
feit coin. I know him to be a dangerous character, and
the constant associate of thieves, and Mr. Stokes, boot-
maker, of Coventry-street, is in attendance to-day to prefer
a charge of felony against him.
Mr Tyrwhitt—The prisoner is a cruel and cowardly
fellow, and I shall commit him for two months with hard
labour.

Legislative Encouragement to Fraudulent
Dealings with the Public Money.

(Front the Economist.)

The accusations made against the Lord Chancellor have
as yet had no effect on that great functionary, and probably
will not have. Nothing is likely to be proved against him
inconsistent with his continuing to hold the Great Seal.
But there is good reason to hope that the revelations of
subordinate matters consequent on those accusations may
insure a very great reform in public money matters.
Nothing can be safer than the honesty of English officials
on the high road. The great sums that are received by all
important departments, by the Customs, or the Excise, or
the Stamps and Taxes, aro entirely beyond question. But
there are a great number of by-ways to the English Exche-
quer. There are many out-of-the-way recipients of the
public money for occasional charges and incidental -fees,
who aro under no check, who are subject to no audit, who
are often in arrear, who do just as they like.
Mr. Edmunds, who is now so notorious, was one of these.
His mode of dealing with the public money is now on
record by official investigation, and out of his own mouth,
and, therefore, it is easy to speak of it correctly, and duo
to the public to describe what it was. Mr. Edmunds was
Clerk of the Patents,—that is, not only to the patents for

inventions, which, in common conversation, are exclusively
so called, but also to what the law calls patents—that is,
the special licences which are preliminary both to the duties
and the profits of the principal offices under the Crown.
There are very considerable sums annually paid for these
licences,-as is natural, since a great number of the best
places in the State cannot be obtained without them. Mr.
Edmunds duly received these moneys, but did not pay them
over. He placed them in a bank account which is thus
described in the evidence of Mr. Greenwood, the solicitor
to the Treasury, who inquired into the matter, and thus
caused the entire disturbance :
" Lord Chelmsford—What is the title of the book ?
Leonard Edmund; Esq., Patent-office Account.' The
address is, 121, Regent-street,' altered afterwards to 21,
Berkeley-square.' This is the pass-book, headed Patent
office Account, Leonard Edmunds, Esq., with Messrs.
Coutts and Co.,' and this that I hold in my hand is a
transcript of what was handed to me by Mr. Leonard Ed-
munds.

" Earl of Derby—lt begins, I see, in November, 1833 ?
Yes, that is the first entry.

"And is continued down to when ?—lt continues down
to April 27, 1864. In the first page there are three draughts
to private account of £lB7 odd, £lBO odd, and £lOO, and
in the next page, To your account, £l4B 9s.'
" To your private account, £229 lls. ?'—Yes, there is
that entry ; and then in 1835, To your account, £loo.'
" To yourself, £so,' that is in 1836 ; and then on August 3,
'To your private account, £99 7s. 6d.' March 7, 1837, To
your private account, £loo,' and in December, To your
account, £150,' and then afterwards to bearer, £5O, and so
forth. I said we should desire to have an account of those
moneys. It had been stated by Mr. Edmunds that the
moneys which had been paid into Messrs. Coutts' consisted
of public moneys, and then, it appearing that a number of
these sums had, as far as we could judge from the way the
pass-book was made up, been paid to the private account,
we desired to know for what reason they were transferred
to the private account.
"Lord Taunton—Do you moan transferred from the
public account with Messrs. Coutts to Mr. Edmunds's pri-
vate account with Messrs. Coutts ?—I have never seen Mr.
Edmunds's private account at all ; but it is entered here,
To your private account.'
" Were these transfers from the public account kept by
Mr. Edmunds to his private account ? Is that what you
mean by transferred ?—I cannot tell. I have no materials
except these.

" Earl of Derby—Did you examine Mr. Edmunds with
this pass-book in your hands, and eall his attention to
these payments specially, and ask him to account for them ?
—Yes, every one of them.
"Did he give you no account of them?—None."

That is to say, Mr. Edmunds paid the public money to
an account at a private bank, and drew on it for his own
benefit.

We boldly say that this circumstance of itself ought,
under proper management of the national Treasury, to be a
valid reason and a certain cause of immediate dismissal. A
man ought not to remain a day in the public service who
even began such a practice, much less a person like Mr.
Edmunds who continued the bad custom more than 30 years.
It has been gravely argued that at first at least Edmunds
put back the money.—that the transfer of his " private
accounts" were in the nature of mistakes, were somewhat
abnormal,—and other weak defences. But under a tolerable
system of national finance it would be impossible that such
defences should be made. They are a worse condemnation
of our present system than the offences they are offered
to palliate. They show on the part of those who make
them a lax notion of the manner in which public money
ought to be dealt with,—more dangerous than specific
misconduct.
Even if Mr. Edmunds had never been in arrears with his
accounts, we should have considered the system faulty,
though we shoUld not have blamed him. Indeed, we do not
now blame him for what ho did. You have no right to
tempt a man with untold gold. You have no right to autho-
rise a public servant 'for many years to mix up public
moneys with his own moneys, and then to be surprised if
he cannot distinguish them. The final difficulty of making
the distinction was very great. Mr. Edmunds himself tells
us :

"In July last I employed Mr. Hooper, a professional
skilled accountant, to assist me in making out the accounts
for the whole 31 years, which accounts had never before
been rendered or audited in any shape. I worked with Mr.
Hooper for some weeks upon these accounts. The book con-
taining the accounts of receipts of fees and distribution of
the same, commencing in 1833 and ending in 1846, has been
lost or mislaid by Mr. Ruscoe, the chief clerk, who had the
custody of the books of the office ; that book has disap-
peared, and no reasonable account is given of its disappear-
ance. However, it is gone from the custody of Mr. Ruscoe,
who had the custody of the books."
This singular statement is a part, not of the accusation,
but of the defence. Mr. Edmunds, who for 30 years and
more has received a certain part of the public income, ad-
mits he has never during all that time rendered any ac-
count of it, and says he cannot be sure of what he has re-
ceived and what he ought to pay, because of the loss .of an
account-book relating wholly to transactions now more
than 20 years past.

Nor is this the end. It sounds like a jest, but it is a literal
fact, that 13 years ago Mr. Edmunds ceased altogether to
pay over this branch of the public revenue. Before
that he had paid over uncertain sums at uncertain intervals,
but after that time he ceased to pay over at all. The dia-
logue between him and the Solicitor to the Treasury would
be ludicrous if the matter were not so grave :
" Mr. Greenwood—Since August 9, 1852, I do not find
that there hasbeen any payment to the Exchequer, although
there are verylarge balances; are you in a position to tell us
why you have not paid any accounts into the Exchequer ?
Mr Edmunds—Not at present. Will you allow me a rea-
sonable time, and I will put in an account of the whole
matter? Mr. Greenwood—These are questions not to be
answered by accounts. No, I am aware of that. Mr.
Greenwood—lt is a remarkable fact that throughout you
pay considerable sums to the Exchequer, and that in
August, 1852, that is more than 12 years ago, you seem to
have ceased to make any payment to the Exchequer, al-
though largo balances are in your hands. I want. to know
whether you can explain that ? Mr. Edmunds—l cannot
reasonably."

The practice of receiving the people's money without pay-
ing it over or accounting for it is, undoubtedly, difficult of
"reasonable explanation."
It naturally occurred to the Committee of the House of
Lords, and it must occur to our readers, to ask how such
gross misconduct should be possible. They inquired whose
duty it was to call such an offender as Mr. Edmunds to ac-
count ; they evidently expected to find, as they ought to
find, some specific functionary charged with watching Mr.
Edmunds, and seeing that he paid the money over rightly.
They find that there is no such fanctionaiT. The law, as
explained by the authorised expositors, is not only one in a
defective Mate, but in what, to those who are not familiar
with it, who hoar it for the first time, is an incredible state.
The Act under which Mr. Edmunds was appointed pre-
scribes that the "fees and emoluments" received by him
"shall be accounted for once in every three months, com-
mencing in the first instance from the date of such appoint-
ment respectively, and shall be paid by the said officers re-
spectively into the receipt of his Majesty's Exchequer, and
be carried to and made part of the Consolidated Fund of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and the
account of the party so paying such fees shall be verified
by his oath, which oath any one of the Masters in Ordinary
of the High Court of Chancery is hereby required and au-
thorised to administer."

It would strike a person new to the study of English in-
stitutions that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the head
of the Exchequer—was the person responsible for its busi-
ness. 'But this is an error. It would be much truer to say
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the enemy of the
Exchequer; he is the head of the Treasury, and there is an
entire series of defensive enactments intended to protect the
Exchequer from the Treasury. The true head of the Ex-
chequer is the "Controller," and he is so far from being an
officer under the Treasury, that he is the person to resist
the Treasury. The Chancellor of the EXchequer is the per-
son who spends the public money ; the " Controller" is the
person who prevents its being spent improperly ; his busi-

ness is to see that no money not duly authorized by Par-
liament should ever be expended. Popularly the Exche-
quer and the Treasury are looked upon as one thing, but
they are two things, and even twohostile things ; the Trea-
sury is a paying machine ; the Exchequer is a receiving
machine strictly, and out of abundant caution fenced
paying machine. It would be exaggerating to
practical life the Exchequer is an office hostile
asagyaitnitsattthine
to the Treasury, but it is strictly true to say that it is an
office most jealous of the Treasury.
To explain the almost inconceivable mode in which this
separation of offices works, we must give the very words in
the official statement, for we are afraid otherwise it will not
be believed. Mr. Gladstone, with Mr. Hamilton and Mr.
Arbuthnot, two principal permanent ()facers of the Trea-

sure, were examined by the Committee, and answered
thus :

"Lord Chelmsford—When the money is spoken of as
having been paid into the Exchequer, which is the depart-
ment of the Exchequer into which the money would be
paid 7—The Exchequer is an entirely distinct and indepen-
dent office, and has no connexion whatever with the Trea-
sury, except such as rests upon law or known usage. The
Exchequer is not a department of the Treasury, nor is it an
office subordinateto the Treasury. There are certain fixed
relations between the Exchequer and the Treasury ; but
beyond these the Exchequer is entirely independent and
separate.

"(To Mr. Arbuthnot).—The word Exchequer' is a mys-
terious word ; can you help us to understand it ?—I think
I can explain .it. According to the old usage every pay-
ment of revenue was made at the office of the Exchequer,
which is termed in acts of Parliament the receipt of the
Exchequer, and was broUght to account at the Exchequer;
but in course of time the Bank of England became the
bankers of the Exchequer, and people tendering money had
to go to the Exchequer to get a receivable order from the
Controller-General for the Bank to receive it, in order that
it might be carried to the proper account ; but legally and
nominally the money is still paid into the receipt of the
Exchequer as it was before.

" Had, then, the Controller-General any check at all on
the payment of money ? Did he know what ought to be
paid ?—He had no check, exempt from the affidavit of the
person tendering the money.
"It appears that Mr. Edmunds offered an affidavit to the
Exchequer, and that they would not receive it.—He had to
swar the affidavit before a Master in Chancery.
" Earl of Derby—He said he wanted to make the affidavit
before them, and they said it was no part of their business
to take affidavits.—l think the act prescribes that the oath
was to be taken before a Master in Chancery.

"Lord Chelmsford—After a certain time there was no
Master in Chancery; the office was abolished. Can you give
us any notion at all what sort of check there would be upon
the receipts of Mr. Edmunds and the money to be paid over
by him to the Exchequer ?—I think it is one of the mys-
teries of the Court of Chancery."
So the law controlling Mr. Edmunds worked thus—The
Controller of the Exchequer said, " I can't interfere ; I am
an officer to receive money, but not an officer to induce
persons to pay money. I have no compulsory powers
vested in me ; I can prevent money going out, but I can-
not interfere to make it come in." The Treasury say,
"We cannot interfere. We are not named in the act. The
money is to be paid into the Exchequer. The Exchequer
is ' over the way ;' we have no authority to interfere there,
and if we did, an interference would be much disliked,
and not at all attended to." The Master in Chancery had
the best defence of all ; ho said, " I cannot interfere, be-
cause I am abolished."

It is painful to think that in the 19th century we should
be gravely discussing for an important object such miser-
able technicalities. It passes patience that there should
be two great finance departments, each with power to
counteract the other, but neither with power to stop actual
malversation ; both industrious, rigid, and virtuous, but
both permitting a petty clerk to withhold accounts and
appropriate money for years. What is a financial organisa-
tion fit for if it does not even attempt to check the most
frequent, easy, and probable of financial offences ?

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

TATTERSALLS'-LAST EVENING.

The Monday before the Derby has been proverbially
known for the extraordinary excitement it creates at Tat-
tersalls' both in respect of the numbers that assemble there
and the amount of betting which takes place on the grand
event. A feeling of uneasiness and restlessness takes
possession of society in general for days before, and it is
even recorded of a certain naughty parson of enlarged
sporting propensities who determined to anticipate the
national furore by a day, wickedly paraphrased a certain
" lesson" thus :—" First Sunday before the Derby !" We
will not go so far as to vouch for the truth of the anecdote
but, whether true or not, thousands are ever ready to ac-
cept it. A casual visitor to the metropolis who might
have strayed to-day towards Knightsbridge could not fail
to observe that the angle formed by the junction of the
Knightsbridge and Brompton roads was the theatre of
some wonderful operations, and that the thousands who
gathered there from every quarter were engaged in a pur-
suit in which lukewarmness is a thing unknown. We
cannot recollect having seen so large an assemblage on
any previous anniversary, but the importance of the
transactions within the betting sanctuary were not in
keeping with the imposing state of things without the
pale. What with rumours of further " scratchings," fa-
vourites about to be "knocked out," outsiders taking their
places, and the thousand and one " shaves" which are
constantly flying about, to the distress of anxious backers,
the " yard division" were kept in a perpetual ferment.
The first blow their hopes received was the scratching of
Chattanooga, an announcement which was greeted with a
perfect euroclydon of groans and epithets, which the
most comprehensible vocabulary would fail to interpret
truly. Turn we now to the inner house. An influx of
Parisian speculators had a Very decided effect upon the
market, and that they came for the express purpose of
giving their unqualified support to Gladiateur was soon
evident, as the French horse speedily had the call, and
after 9 to 2 had been taken to several hundred pounds, he
kept oscillating between that price and 4 to 1 throughout
the afternoon, the latter odds having been taken kindly.
Still there was no disputing the fact that Breadalbane had
a more extended circle of admirers, and although a noble
lord once laid 550 to 100, it was pronounced a mere fancy
bet, and the taker of odds was voted decidedly on the
right side of the hedge. Since the appearance of the
Malton " crack" on Epsom Downs he has ingratiated him-
self completely in public favour, and no reports of other
candidates, however flattering, will stall them off from in-
vesting on their pet horse. He was in such request to-day
that after 5 to 1 had been laid several times, he advanced
half a point, and at the finish layers declined to operate
on more liberal terms. Archimedes was seldom mentioned,
but Wild Charley was in great request, for after 10 to 1
had been laid to money, there was a fresh spurt in his
favour, and he left off at 9to 1 taken to £lOO. Christmas
Carol and Longdown were each firm at their voted prices;
but Oppressor declined to 100 to 7 (offered). When the
room and court-yard were nearly cleared we saw 1000 to
60 laid; but then the reputed supporters of Oppressor had
taken their departure. The remainder of the quotations
.and the tone of the market will be fully indicated by the
subjoined list of

CLOSING PRICES.
DERBY.

4to 1 agst Count F. de Lagrange's Gladiateur (taken)
9 to 2 agst Mr. H. Chaplin's Broadalbane (taken and
offered)
Bto 1 agst Lord Stamford's Archimedes (offered)
9to 1 agst Mr. Merry's Wild Charley (taken and

_
offered) •
11 to 1 agst Mr. T. Wadlow's Christmas Carol (taken)
12 to 1 agst Mr. Spencer's Longdown (taken)
100 to 7 agst Mr. M'Kenzie's Oppressor (offered-100 to
6 wanted)
25 to 1 agst Lord Westmoreland's Brahma (offered-30
to 1 taken freely)
40 to 1 agst Mr. Chaplin's Broomielaw (taken)
40 to 1 agst Lord Durham's Ariel (taken)
40 to 1 agst Marquis of Hastings' Kangaroo (taken)
40 to 1 agst Baron Rothschild's Zephyr (offered-45 to
1 taken freely)
66 to 1 agst Sir J. Hawley's Bedminster (taken and

offered)
66 to 1 agst Mr. Watt's Olmar (taken and offered)
1000 to 10 agst Count Batthyany's King Charming (taken

and offered)
1000 to 10 agst Mr. W. 11. Robinson's Eltham (taken and

offered)
1000 to 10 agst Mr. Merry's Zambesi (offered)
1000 to 10 agst Mr. Haig's Roderick Random (taken and
offered)
PLACE BETTING.
800 even on Gladiateur being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
500 to 400 agst Breadalbane being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
400 to 200 agst Wild Charley being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
900 to 300 agst Longdown being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
700 to 200 agst Oppressor being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
700 to 100 agst Brahma being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
750 to 100 agst Broomielaw being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
500 to 50 agst Zephyr being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
250 to 25 agst Zambesi being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
500 to 30 agst King Charming being 1,2, or 3 (taken)
1000 to 50 agst Roderick Random being 1,2, or 8 (taken)
1000 to 40 agst Eltham being 1,2, or 3 (taken)

Chattanooga was struck out of the Derby between six
and seven p.m. May 28.

JOSIAH WEDGWOOD AT COURT.—A most charm-
ing anecdote has come down to our day in relation
to one of Mr. Wedgwood's visits at Court. He was sum-
moned to St. James's, and, 'on arriving at the appointed
hour on a sunny spring or summer's morning, was ushered
into the royal presence. The Queen stood with her ladies
beneath an unshaded window, and here it was that Mr.
Wedgwood advancing made his obeisance, and, displaying
the ware he had brought, answered the royal questions.
But as her Majesty thus stood examining some exquisite
specimen of the art, which years of ceaseless toil and un-
repining obscurity had brought to this perfection, the
sun's power increased, and its rays, falling on her-face,
caused her obvious annoyance. The possible etiquette
was to have mentioned the matter to one of the unobser-
vant ladies in attendance, who in turn would have sum-
moned a page or royal footman. But Mr. Wedgwood
thought only of removing the intruding glare, and that
speedily. He simply walked straight to the window, and
pulled down the blind. The Queen, aware in an instant
of the relief and its cause, looked up from the object she
was regarding, and, inclining her head, smiled her thanks.
" Lathes," she said, addressing her attendants, " Mr.
Wedgwood is, you see, already an accomplished courtier."
It was courtesy, however, learnt in the school of nature
—the offspring of a manly and generous respect for woman
—and he would have shown it as much to a peasant as to
the Queen, who was his foremost patron.—The Shilling
Magnine.