The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-10 00:00:00

E 1/4_
ATOMIT
--,!!.NATA

LONDON, TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1349.

In commenting yesterday upon the report of the
committee appointed to investigate Great
North of England Purchase Acco* nf,me showed
that Mr. Hunsori was fully and eomputely exone-
rated, by his very accusers themselves, ofhaving been
in any degree actuated by improper motives in the
original transaction, respecting the purchase of the
Great North of England Railway by the York,
Newcastle, and Berwick Company—that he di
not gain a single shilling by the tranaaction, and
that if the contract was an improvident one,
(which at the time it was by no means supposed to
be), he would himself have been one of the chief
sufferers, as a very large holder of shares in the
purchasing company. This point, therefore, re-
specting which so much calumny was freely poured
forth, must be at once and for ever set at rest.
The second accusation, that which constitutes
the gravamen of the charge, that he had debited the
company with sums beyond the market price 'of the
day, is also fully and satisfactorily explained by the
evidence of Mr. CLosz, the secretary to the company,
who shows that it originated in a very natural mis-
take on his part of the calculations made by Mr.
PLEWS. The figures 3:3 : 6 were placed opposite
the 18/. shares in the column showing the profits to
be derived by the company by purchasing at the
market price of the clay, viz., 21. What, then, could
have been the meaning of those figures, but that the
shares were worth to the company 241. 3s. 6d., and
consequently that Mr. HUDSON might go to that limit
in bidding for the 15/. shares. And such, in truth, was
their meaning, for we have taken some pains to un-
ravel the mystery. Mr. PLEWS would appear to
have calculated the value of the 15/. shares (as well
as the 401.), supposing money to be worth to the
company 4 as well as 8 per cent. If the latter was
assumed as the basis of the calculation, the then
value of the shares would have been 211.65. 3d. ;if
the former, 241. 3s. 6d. Mr. CLoss erroneously
took the latter as representing the correct
value, according to Mr. PLEWS'S estimates.
He stated this to Mr. HUDSON, who un-
fortunately left the matter altogether in his hands,
And that gentleman told him to enter the price
at 231. 10s., or 13s. 6d. per share below the estimates ;
in other words, if no mistake had occurred, making
the company a present of 1,9391. 195., which he might
have charged with perfect impunity if he thought
proper. He also, when he perceived that there had
been some mistake, although not knowing the parti-
culars, paid 2,8741. on account, and (as appears by
the evidence of Sir JOHN SIMPSON) declared that
they (the secretary and himself) should go into the
matter after the meeting, and this, be it re-
membered, before
any intimation had been given
to him of the intention of any parties to prefer a
charge on the subject. It appears that a difference
of opinion prevailed in the
committeetoe as to the
sufficiency of this explanation, and that consequently
handsnsequently of the
" they left it without comment in
shareholders." This is the result of the unfortunate
constitution of that committee, where the accusers
were judges (and one of them witness also), being
thus in his rather anomalous position, as Mrs
MALAPROP 'quaintly remarked, "like Cznimens,
three gentlemen in one." The facts will, however, be
duly appreciated by every unprejudiced and disin-
terested person.
The next branch of the accusation referred to by
the committee is, that
" At the time Mr. Hudson received the cheque for
81,100/. (on the 27th October, 1346,) he himself could
not have paid more than about 25,0001. on account of tke
purchase of these shares, although he might be called upon
make a further payment of about 70,000/. on the 30th of
October. The effect of this would be that the shares
held by Mr. Hudson on his own account, and sold after-
wards at an enhanced price to the company, were to a
considerable extent paid for in the first instance with the
money he had received from the company.
ilatent has been prominently put forward
rex- by—if-000V contemporary as materially affecting

NN4i

Mr. HUDSON'S position in the case. Now what arc
the real facts ?

It is notorious to every person who has ever been
in any degree concerned in railway transactions, that
there are what are termed two settling days (the 15th
and 30th or 31st) on which all the shares purchased
in each month are paid for. Mr. HUDSON had, it ap-
peared, paid on the 15th of October about 25,0001., and
he had entered into contracts to the extent of 70,0001.
in addition (a fact wholly unnoticed by our ;con-
temporary), a sum which he was bound to pay out
of his own private funds on that 30th of October,
whatever might have been the result of the general
meeting of the 26th, and whether the stock had been
raised on that day for the purchase or not. In
pledging his personal credit for that particular
day, he had, to all intents and purposes, as
fully paid for the shares as if he had signed
cheques on his bankers for the amount ; and
when he received 81,1001. on the 27th of October,
he would still have been about 14,0001. in advance.
It is also notorious that it was a constant practice for
parties buying for account day to sell again previous
to that day, and thus to realise their profits on the
transaction. It would be manifestly most unfair to
upbraid Mr. HUDSON for doing that which was uni-
versally recognised as a perfectly legitimate operation.
These, acknowledged facts completely exonerate
him from the charge of having " purchased shares on
his own account with the money of the company, and
afterwards sold them to the company at an enhanced
price," and entirely rebut the charges that have
been preferred on that score.
The next point in which Mr. HUDSON is concerned
is the charge of 0901. 18s. for brokerage on the
shares sold by him to the company. This, it was
distinctly proved by Mr. CLOSE, was done entirely
on his own responsibility, without the know-
ledge of Mr. HUDSON, who was not in-
formed of the fact " until after the meeting
of the 20th of February." Whether it was
right or wrong, therefore Mr. HUDSON could
not have been in any degree responsible ; he knew
nothing of it ; he did not calculate the amount he
received, but reposed implicit confidence in Mr.
CLOSE, and that gentleman appeared to have added it
as a matter of course, " because the company should
have paid it, if it had bought the shares in the mar-
ket," and, in fact, it had been paid, and properly paid
in every other transaction. The error was, there-
fore, his alone, and Mr. HUDSON had nothing what-
soever to say thereto.
The only remaining charge concerns the pay-
ment to Mr. SATTEETUWAITE, where 16,6621.
was charged, and 16,6001. only paid. It is
not very probable that Mr. HupsoN would have
attempted an act to place his character in jeopardy
and damage his reputation for so trifling a gain as
621. The explanation, however, shows that he was a
loser of 381. in place of a gainer of 62/. by the trans-
action, for it appears that he had desired Mr. CLOSE to
pay to his credit 1001. on account of travelling ex-
penses, which was done on the 12th of May, the resi•
due of 16,562/. for the shares bought of Mr. SATTER-
THITAITE having been paid on the sth April, whereas
it appeared when Mr. CLOSE wrote to that gentleman
for a stamped receipt " for the 16 5621." paid to him
by Mr. HUDSON, that it appeared that 16,600/. had
actually been received. This frivolous charge is,
therefore, as satisfactorily refuted as any of the others.
The only remaining point is, that Mr. HUDSON
could only be regarded as a trustee for the company,
and that he should refund the entire amount he re-
ceived over and above what he paid, with interest
on the balance. Now, on this point, we think Mr.
Hunsox might reasonably object. He pur-
chased these shares, or, at least, the great
majority of them, before he was authorised
to buy on behalf of the company. If he
had made imprudent bargains—if he had given more
than the sums stated in Mr. FILERS'S estimate, he
would not have been relieved ; the loss would have been
altogether his own. There is, therefore, no reciprocity
in asking him to give the company the benefit of
his good bargains. Indeed, if the mistake had
not occurred the profit would have been very
inconsiderable, for it appears that he gave
for the majority of the 151. shares more than
the estimate. Mr. Hunsote, with that generosity,4l
which we deliberately and advisedly say has charac-
terised his every transaction with the company—
which induced him to give up a guaranteed income of
8,2501. per annum for the benefit of that company,
was quite prepared to make the sacrifice, and stated
his intention to Mr. CLOSE to have the accounts made
out at the prices the shares actually cost him. But, on
considering that he had incurred personal lia-
bilities on account of the company, he deter-
mined to postpone his intention until the matter was
finally arranged. It now appears from his own letter,
which will be found I,in another column, that he is
prepared to make a much larger pecuniary sacrifice,
and to cancel the entire transaction, taking back the
shares at their present depressed value. This is in-
deed a high-minded and independent course. It
shows how little his accusers understand the true
character of the man whom they have calumniated
—how utterly incapable they are of appreciating the
motives by which he has been actuated in all his
transactions with the company.

We have now carefully and elaborately gone
through every portion of this important case, a case
involving the integrity of a gentleman who for many
years has occupied no ordinary position, and we fear-
lessly appeal to every impartial and unprejudiced
mind whether the accusations have not been most
fully and satisfactorily refuted, and whether Mr.
HUDSON has not been most triumphantly acquitted of
every imputation.

A contribution. evidently designed to grace the
pages of the Quarterly has, by some inexplicable ac-
cident, found its way into the current number of the
Edinburgh. On reading it we rubbed our eyes in
astonishment ; we turned to the title-page and glanced
at the cover ; but no, the indentity of the publica-
tion was incontrovertible, there was the sententious
line from PUBLICS SYRUS, Judea daranatur cum nocene
almolvitur, and there was the old buff and blue livery,
which had become hallowed by its association with
the grace of JEFFREY, the vigour of BROUGHAM, the
terse annotations of MACKINTOSH, and the refined
eloquence of MACAULAY. There was no mistaking
it. The great Whig organ had been feeding on
the sinister logic of Monsieur GUIZOT, and
had unconsciously become impregnated with the
very colour of his sophistries, as the caterpillar
acquires a greenness of complexion from devouring
the leaves of the mulberry. Of all writers we should
certainly take Monsieur GUI OT to be the very last
who could be expected to captivate the understanding
in opposition to the principles of a long career, and in
defiance of all the known predilections of a stern
political education. His arguments are very skele-
tons—dry and unbewitching, but complete in every
bone, from the occiput and the spinal column to the
shin and the incisor. He garbs his theme in no
flowing raiments or blooming fascinations. His works
have not in them one drop of that intellectual sap
which boils up into enthusiasm or warms into fervour in
the compositions of other publicists. Their prevailing
characteristic is their aridity. They retain not one
jewel of wit in their crevices. They nurture not one
flower of fancy. The reason being that M. Guzaox
with all his genius, with all his capacity, with all the
athletic force of his judgment, has not one particle
of imagination. Even his ability as an orator never
expatiates in the graces of rhetoric, never rises to the
altitude of eloquence. In his speeches he possesses
only the acquirement of logic and the gift of volubi-
lity. And yet it is this hard, unattractive, impas-
sable essayist who has bewitched the judgment of the
-Edilsiergh for the nonce, and has deluded the jou.-
nalist of Whiggery into an idea that his real vocation
is to cry up the praises of Toryism and to discoun-
tenance everything approximating in the smallest
degree to liberality.
The closing article i
tieth number n the one-hundred-and-eigh-
of the Whig Quarterly is dictated
under the inspiration
odf, FwiLitut:na pon Hadm atthteerscontri-
butor, in a kindrednaos
i as tic al , he would have
pennedr a
erxeluigltiaotuiosntotloeraAncrecbtbhisbop
at m
laAuhri. llad the Edin-
a,.
diatribe against
been a matter of
Edin-
burgh Reviewer but followed out to the full the
example of the Parliamentary candidate who con-
tented himself with bawling from the hustings
in Somersetshire, " I say ditto to 11r. Burke 1-
he might have spared himself the labour of
enditing these very eccentric revelations, by shouting

in pica or bourgeois, from the last page of the Quar-
terly, "I say ditto to Monsieur Guizot !" The paper
is merely a servile echo of the pamphlet. It says
ditto to Monsieur GUIZOT with a vengeance—for in
so doing it utterly falsifies all those doctrines against
finality, all those pithy syllogisms in favour of reform,
all those eloquent declamations against the restriction
of speech, of meeting, of printing, and of petition-
ing, upon which the publication had deservedly built
up its reputation.
Speaking of the Republican Government of Febru-
ary, 1848, the writer has the effrontery to say that
" the total absence of any new talent is so striking
as almost to suggest an incidental proof of the
utter needlessness of the revolution." The utter need-
lessness of the revolution ! As if there could by any
possibility be found in the records of the human race,
in ancient or modern times, from the earliest to the
latest epochs of civilization, any revolution so justi-
fiable, so imperatively necessary, so actually forced
upon the population ! If a corruption more flagrant
than the corruption of the venal days of VERULAM is
not a justification of the punishment of a monarchy,
then we admit that the Count ias NEUILY ought at
this moment to be residing in the midst of splendour
in the palace of the Tuileries. But when we look
back to the vicious days which preceded the
glorious outbreak of democracy in February we exult
in the boldness of the heroic Parisians in kicking the
degraded rulers of France out of a backdoor, through
the streets, into an ignominious flight, which fate has
since converted into an eternal banishment. We see
in that grand rising of the people the suppression of
a system which had converted one of the first states-
men in Europe into a political pandar and a financial
pimp—a system which had transformed the Assembly
of Representatives into tuft-hunters and parasites—
a system which had led, in fine, to such a general
vitiation of society, that the solemn promise of a
Prince could be broken as idly as a rotten filbert, 1
that a Minister of the Crown could be charged in ;
open court with petty larcenies from which the soul
of a cadger would have revolted, and with wholesale
peculations at which even the hardy con-
science of FAITNTELROY would have hesi-
tated. Before the Revolution of February the
world was becoming habituated to such spectacles
as those of the associates of the Government killing
one another in single combat, from quarrels arising
between them when flushed with wine and surrounded
by courtezans in the intoxicating debaucheries of an
establishment combining the villanous attractions of
the hell and the brothel, They witnessed in another
direction, a royal princess kidnapped under shelter of
dragoons and artillery—to enrich the youngest
son of the sovereign with the riches of her ap-
panage. They saw in another a magnanimous enemy
cheated by unkingly guiles into the horrors of per-
petual imprisonment. They witnessed the compulsory
sacrifice of a neighbouring monarch to the intrigdes
of the French Administration. They saw a member
of the aristocracy, one of the intimates of the reigning
family, permitted to escape from the avenging hand of
juttice, and to cap the climax of his infamy by com-
mitting self-destruction, after imbruing his murderous ,
hands in the blood of his unfortunate wife. They
saw official after official convicted of bribery, and I
sentenced to the expiation of their offences. They knew
the whole monarchical scheme to be the cause of mis-
fortune throughout the departments, and to be the op-
probrium of every European population. They recog-
nised the gradual disappearance of all the guarantees of
liberty given in 1830. They found the represen-
tative system undermined, the Chamber of Deputies
a packed assembly of placemen, the Cabinet a gang
of clever but unscrupulous sycophants, the princes
of the blood the friends of duellists, and gamblers, and
profligates, and murderers. AND THEY ROSE. They
crushed this infamous Government. They expelled
these fawning tools of state-craft. They compelled
this cunning Vizier of despotism to escape in the
fitting disguise of a lacquey. They drove forth, un-
harmed but covered with derision, this King of lies and
robberies, of faithlessness and corruption. Yet we are
told now in the fourth month of the year 1849,
—and are told moreover (of all publications !) by the
Edinburgh Review—that the revolution of February
was conspicuous for its "utter needlessness." Surely
possible to misrepresent democracy without
Wk. lating common sense, or distorting the revelations
of history. _ _ _

Enormous, however, as is the absurdity of the
statement that the third French Revolution was re-
markable for its " utter needlessness," the absurdity
of that statement is infinitely surpassed by the asser-
tion that there was " a total absence of any new
talent" in the Republican Government. The his-
tories of the Provisional Government, of the Execu-
tive Govern:nent, and of the Government of the
President BONAPARTE afford in tlilmselyes a suf-
ficient contradiction. And the narrative of the first
few weeks after the explosion of February gives
proof that the statesmen of that extraordinary
emergency were endowed not only with unequalled
genius, but with unparalleled and unprecedented
magnanimity.

On concluding our observations upon this fan-
tastic article about " Democracy," we may say that
we regard scarcely so much with regret as with
amazement the momentary hallucination of our con-
temporary.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC.

The National was the only Paris paper published
yesterday.
A Socialist banquet, presided over by M. JOLT,
was held on Sunday. It is intended to give a ban-
quet to General COURTAIS, at Passy, on Sunday next.
It is rumoured that the PRESIDENT of the Re-
public has determined to protest against the accept-
ance of the Imperial Crown of Germany by the
King of PRUSSIA.
A telegraphic dispatch has been received by the
French Government announcing that General BE LA
MARMORA took possession of the town of Genoa on
the 6th, at six o'clock in the evening, after a combat
in the streets.
The National speaks of a rumour which has pro-
duced some sensation in the Salle des Conferences of
the National Assembly. It is to the effect that the Count
of MONTEMOLIN had traversed the whole of France on
his way to Spain to join his partisans in Catalonia,
and that it was only by chance he was discovered
in Perpignan at the very moment he was preparing
to cross the Spanish frontier ; that he was then ar-
rested and placed, with all due regard to his rank,
under the care of a commissary of police ; that he
was sent back, and that he lately passed through
Paris completely incite. He was conducted to
one of the seaports o the Manche, where he took
his passage on board a vessel and returned to England.
The Three per Cents. closed on the Paris Bourse
on Monddy at 66f. 80c.; the Five per Cents., at
89f. 60c.; the New Loan, at 88f. 90c.; Orleaua Rail-
road shares, 855 f.; Rouen, 552 f. 50c.; Havre, 302 f.
50c. ; Great Northern, 457 f. 50c. ; Avignon, 225 f. ;
Vierron, 362 f. 50c. ; Basle, 101 f. 50c. ; Bordeaux,
412 f. 50c.; Paris and Strasburg, 375 f.; Tours and
Nantes, 328 f. 75c.
BUSINESS DONE IN FOREIGN RAILWAYS AT THE
LONDON STOCK-EXCHANGE, APRIL 9.
Boulogne and Amiens, 83%—Central of France (Orleans
and Vicrzon), 14—East Indian, 41,,f7Namur and Liege, 8
en in—Northern of France,ll—Paris and Strasbourg, 4%
—Rouen and Havre, 111,4.