The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-10 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TlMES.—Seldom has there appeared on a select
committee an inquiry more important than that
which the House of Lords yesterday intrusted to
chosen members of their body. The facts which
they have to ascertain are in the highest degree
momentous to the character and welfare of indivi-
duals, and involve principles of public conduct upon
the observance of which the whole mechanism of
Government depends. The debate of Tuesday even-
ing raised in a rough and incomplete manner the
issues which will require consideration. We still
feel the same difficulty as then in laying before the
public, we do not say a complete narrative, but a
precise statement of the questions that are to be
raised. The case is, however, a little clearer than it
was, and we will endeavour to explain as nearly as
we can what the questions are into which the com-
mittee will have to inquire. The first question in order
of time to which, by the express desire of Lord Derby,
the house is directed to give its attention, involves
the circumstances under which the original appoint-
ment of Mr. Edmunds to the Clerkship of Patents
was made. That appointment dates as far back as
1833, during the Chancellorship of Lord Brougham,
The value of the Clerkship is only £4OO a year.
We speak of facts not yet in evidence, but of the
truth of which we have no doubt, when we state
that three-fourths of that salary—in other words,
£3OO a year—have been from that time to the pre-
sent paid over under the direction of Mr. William
Brougham, the brother of Lord Brougham and
late Master in Chancery,-1100 to Mr. William
Brougham himself, and £2OO to keep down the
interest of a mortgage of £5,000 on the landed pro-
perty of Lord Brougham. These facts cannot, we
believe, be disputed. What was the precise nature
of the transaction out of which they arose ; whether
the office was procured by the surrender of so large
a portion of its emoluments ; if so, whether Lord
Brougham was a party to the transaction, or whether
some members of his family concluded the bargain on
his own account ; if not, what could have been the
inducement to give up so large a portion of the in-
come of an office involving so much labour and re-
sponsibility ;—these are questions on which we may
expect to receive a clear and unambiguous deliver-
ance from the Committee of the House of Lords. We
hope also to learn from this high authority whether
this system—by which the profits of public offices
are appropriated, not to remunerate those who dis-
charge their duties, but in some way or other for
the benefit of the persons or the friends of the per-
sons by whom they are conferred—is one that is con-
sistent with the lowest views of public morality or
the lowest, standard of official propriety. The com-
mittee will next have to inquire as to the manner in
which the defalcations, or whatever term is to be
applied to them, committed by Mr. Edmunds have
been dealt with. This is not the case familiar to
the readers of English history, of an office possess-
ing a large floating balance of money, the holder of
which was allowed, by a laxity of practice long since
abolished, to derive profit like a banker from the
interest which that balance could be made to yield.
This is, as we understand it, the case of fees received
on behalf of the public which it was the duty of the
recipient to pay over at once to the Exchequer, and
which nothing but some strange oversight could
have enabled him to retain. It may have been
right under the circumstances to forbear from
prosecuting for the offence, which the mere repay-
ment of all the money, with interest, even had it
taken place, could not undo. But it could not be
right that a person guilty of such misconduct should
be allowed to retire without the fullest publicity
being given to the transaction. In private life, in
the case of defalcation, for instance, of a steward or
a bailiff, we may undoubtedly, if we will, pardon
the offence, and out of compassion to the offender
or his family, conceal the wrong we hafe received.
But the case of offences against the public is quite
different. No Government, whatever our opinion
of its integrity, can be trusted to condone them,
and that for two very sufficient reasons. In the first
place, because it is the public,- and not the Govern-
ment, which is defrauded ; and, in the next place,
because the credit of a Government for vigilance, if
not integrity, is naturally involved in concealing the
mistakes of its subordinates, and the Government,
therefore, in pardoning the offences of its subordi-
nates, may not unreasonably be suspected of shelter-
ing its own. There remains the question as to the
immediate causes of Mr. Edmunds's resignation. On
this point so much is certain, that he did actually
resign his situation, that his petition for a pension
was presented by the Lord Chancellor, and that a
pension was granted him without a word being said
as to any suspicion of misconduct. It is not denied
that the Lord Chancellor, who presented the peti-
tion, had official knowledge of the case, nor do the
members of the committee assert that they were in
ignorance of the rumours which were in circulation.
We cannot help thinking they would have taken a
more just view of their duty if they had required
that these rumours should be cleared up before dis-
posing of so large a sum of public money in favour
of a person who, if what was said be true, was
unworthy to receive it. The case of the Chancellor
is different. The facts were formally before him,
and in allowing the Committee to decide without
equally formal evidence of these facts he lent himself
by his reticence to a proceeding which lie must
greatly regret. We have his positive assertion—
which we do not for a moment doubt—that he held
out to Mr. Edmunds no hope that if he would resign
he would obtain a pension for him. Still Mr. Ed-
munds did resign under circumstances, known with
more or less accuracy to a large number of persons,
which he must have felt well assured would, if stated
to the committee, have deprived him of the least
chance of a pension. Mr. Edmunds is a man of
experience, and it seems highly improbable that he
should have furnished so strong an argument against
himself as is involved in the admission of misconduct
implied by a voluntary resignation at the time when
charges were pending against him. His obvious in-
terest, in the absence of any specific inducement to
the contrary, was to continue to hold his office, trust-
ing to the probability that he might be left unmo-
lested, rather than provoke the scandal incidental to
his removal. The Chancellor, it appears, held out
no inducement. Was there no inducement held out
by any one else? Is there no connexion between
the resignation and the grant of the pension ? This
is a point which it is necessary to clear up, and we
cannot doubt that it is destined to be completely
elucidated. The facts yet remain to be explored ;
of the principles involved in them we can have no
doubt. The salaries of public officers are given for
the public service, and whoever so exercises his
patronage as to divert those salaries from their im-
mediate recipients for the benefit of himself or his
relatives is guilty of a grievous offence. The pub-
lic has a right to the fullest knowledge of its own
affairs, and those who attempt to screen public de-
linquents, under whatever circumstances, attract to
themselves a certain portion of the blame due to
that delinquency ' • and, lastly, any man, or any body
of men who may from good nature, or less credit-
able reason, combine to withhold or suppress infor-
mation, with the view of burdening the public with
grants of money to unworthy persons, are exercising
a misplaced liberality out of funds which are not
theirs to give away.
POST.—The publication of the Duke of Suther-
land's recent letter on the understanding subsisting
between tradesmen and servants with respect to per-
centages and gratuities called attention to a time-
honoured custom which, harmless enough in its
origin, had grown into a pernicious system. In
regulating the affairs of his household the duke
materially served the public interests. By insisting
upon fair dealing in his own case, he protested against
a social wrong, and set forth, as his high rank and
character enabled him to do, a noble example. The
Prince of Wales has now done the same. His royal
highness has intimated his determination to with-
draw his custom from all tradesmen who offer, and
to dismiss all servants who accept, a per-tentage on
his household accounts. This decided and authori-
tative action will, it is to be hoped, check transac-
tions which, always equivocal, are no doubt in some
instances plainly dishonest. While, however, it is
certain that servants are, whether by per-centages or
annual gratuities, which have come to be regarded
as salaries, paid for the custom which it is assumed
they influence, it should not be hastily concluded
that respectable tradesmen habitually and directly
charge the payments they make in money or goods
to the servants to the accounts of their masters.
They may do so indirectly, as between cash and
credit customers, and if the inquiry could be carried
out it would probably be found that the evil, as it
affects the buyer and the seller generally, consists
mainly in the practice of making two prices. The
Duke of Sutherland has, it is true, acknowledged the
receipt of " conscience money" from a tradesman,
but that might be either for a direct or an indirect
overcharge ; and it is not an unimportant point to
ascertain what, if any, reduction in the prices of
the articles supplied is effected by the change. If
the prices charged for the future to the Prince of
Wales and the Duke of Sutherland are, as it is to be
supposed they will be, reduced, then, on the pre-
sumption that there has been no direct overcharge,
the public is entitled to partake in the benefit.
There are valid reasons for putting the question
in this light. The system of allowing per-centages
is by no means peculiar to the tradesmen who serve
establishments in Belgravia and Mayfair. Even
honorary secretaries to benevolent institutions have
been known to accept a percentage from the trades-
men they employed in their official capacity. Indeed,
it can hardly be doubted that the wrongs accruing
from this system, and which have grown out of it
and have grafted upon it, are practically more op-
pressive than the system itself. The absence of one
weight and one measure is conspicuous. People
who eau afford the time for domestic shopping, who

have a taste for that sort of thing, and who pay
the goods they take away over the counter, are
rarely imposed upon. As the rule • however, in file
rarely
upper and middle classes of society the tra,'d
calls for orders, and supplies what is ordered upol
eteu
long or short credit. Housekeepers are not expe
to weigh the bread, and the meat, and the btte,re,
and servants may have motives for wishing to
andbe
on good terms with a tradesman. The poor,
the poor alone get a make-weight with the loaf theY
buy at the baker's. On these conditions, therefer
it is idle to imagine that'servants' perquisites en,),
stopped. The only effectual remedy to
It would amount to a social revolution if we Were o
resolve to do our own marketing. The most we C.3t,
do is to pay our bills weekly, and that is no seenr%Yo
against the imposition which may, by the conniva%
of servants, be practised with impunity. It iS'
fact, easier to control a great household in this pall
is impracticah
ticular than to apply the principle now laid dTsed
generally. This is the difficulty. We are comPel'y
to confide in tradesmen, and to trust servant
to
Nevertheless, if we pay them well, we have a righ
count upon their honesty. Looked at from this p9'..0
of view, it must be owned that the circulars bel°'
us witness to a state of things far from satisfactoT
There are, however, honest tradesmen and trkuc'a
worthy servants. As a whole, they may be t%re.
to be neither better no worse than other Inell„-bio
Moralists tell us we are all prone to error and 3,061
to temptation. Perhaps, therefore, it comes
B.
this u
to the old conclusion of faults on all sides. Pilo'
this be so, the more honour is due to the r a
tinguished personages who have turned over of
new leaf in their household books. The Prince,
Wales and the Duke of Sutherland could in"- ,‘.4
virtue of that which, had it been attempted by t)- meted
in a less exalted position, would have been accolluesa;
a vice. There can be no pretence for finding ra., of
ness or parsimony in the royal and noble pleas'-
, there
economy. Yet, courageous as the example IS, ;
are formidable impediments in the way of 311:4uity
tended success. Over and above the impossw tea
of an efficient supervision, the system is Protecicice.
by what is commonly described as moral color cot
This failing, however, should not in the Pr aster
instance be judged harshly. We speak of the of
of a household, but in reality the manageuletinocl
domestic affairs devolves upon the mistress, lice
many ladies have reason to deprecate the vehe,uleaiii
with which servants and tradesmen °oasloot- are
argue a point in which their pecuniary interests 5
daY
concerned. Nor can we forget that the sYsteT
e is
been defended ; and, if those to whom then ot'ciog,
especially addressed fail to understand its won:rice
the servants, who at once minister to their avrlave
and depend upon their bounty, may think theY,evi,
a vested interest in the black mail they help to 'O-
- penalty of dismissal is neutralised by °l end
culty of detection. It is evaded _every
every situation. But the better order of trade r,
may certainly do much to promote a higlier:,,PrP3l,
hension of commercial morality ; and, a;-otainatg;
seeing that they need no longer seek the p
of servants, nor, in fair dealing, fear their
it rests with them to vindicate the honour ant`
pendence of their class.