The Sun.
London, England, 1870-12-10 00:00:00

rim SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1870

TILE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST

MR. a O. TREVELYAN, M.P., ON AI: \I

SIR WILLIAM RUSSELL, BART., M.P.

ADMINISTRATION.

Yesterday, at the Mansion House, before the Lord
Mayor, the adjourned examination into the allegations
against Sir William Russell took place. The defendant
is charged with an offence against the bankruptcy,
in having, as it was alleged, within four
months of a petition being lodged against him
in bankruptcy, disposed of a quantity of goods obtained
upon credit other than in the ordinary course of business.
The goods in question were a quantity of iron rails,
valued at front £2,500 to £3,000, and which were
supplied from the works of Mr. Swift, of Sheffield.
The Hon. A. H. Thesiger appeared for the defendant,
the prosecution being conducted by Mr.. Metcalfe. Mr.
Pooley, jun., who was in
sii; "William's service, and who
at the last. examination gave eviddnce as to his being sent
by the defendant to obtain an advance on the
rails, now said that the limit mentioned was £1,500,
and if he could not get that . sum he was to
return. He received instructions on the 24th November,
1869, and went to Stoke-on-Trent two days afterwards to
see a man named Fisher, on the subject.—The bankruptcy
proceedings in the several petitions filed in February and
April 1870 were put in ; a clerk from the
Queen's Bench produced. the register of judg-
ments signed against the defendant from October
to December, 1869, amounting to several thousand pounds,
and evidence as to various judgments against defen-
dant in the Court of Exchequer in 1869 and 1870, for
several sums of about £B,OOO, one of £50,000, and others
for smaller amounts, was also given. In reply to questions
from Mr. Thesiger, it was stated that it was impossible to say
-if the judgments had been satisfied unless the satisfaction
was made through, and. according to, the rule of the
Courts. In some cases this had been done, and it
might be that in others the judgments had been
satisfied outside of the Courts and privately.
The' prosecutor ' was then recalled, and said that
when Heslopp first came to him he said he was the agent
of Sir William Russell, and was authorised by him to
purchase 500 tons of iron rails for a lino of rail-
way. Heslopp gave hint Sir William's ref e-
rences,• and as they were satisfactory, he told
Heslopp he could have the • rails on Sir William's
acceptance. The negotiation, therefore, was concluded.
In cross-examination witness said the rails cost him
£2,437 10s., and he gave Heslopp £220 for bringing him
the customer. Heslopp was not acting as witness's
agent. Heslopp committed suicide, but he did not
know he had previously got into difficulties. Heslopp
committed suicide some time in February. This prose-
cution was suggested to him by Smith, witness's own
agent. Witness had never consented to his bankers prov-
ing for the amount of the bill. He got the bill back from
his bankers for the purpose of these proceedings. He might
also have said that he wanted to take proceedings
against the Gloucestershire Banking Company, who had
given a favourable account of Sir William.—Re-examined:
When I got the bill back, I had been advised by my soli-
citor as to proceedings against both parties. It was usual
to pay the buyer's agent a commission. Witness would
have cleared about £l5O by the transaction. -
In reply to further questions from Mr. Thesiger, the
prosecutor said there was no entry in his books debiting
the defendant with the rails. He was not aware lie had
previously said he believed the sum was debited to Sir
William. He knew it was not so charged. There was no
reference to Sir William except in his bill-book.
Several letters . bad passed between him and after
persons about the transaction, but defendant's name was
never mentioned in them. He . knew that Hutchings was
the contractor of the line for which the rails were wanted,
and it was at first proposed that witness should take
Hutchings's acceptance, guaranteed by a London firm,
named Cotterell. In re-examination witness said that
Heslopp was introduced to him as Sir William's agent,
and two propositions were made : first, that Hutchings'sbill
should be taken in payment, guaranteed by Cotterell and,
second, that Hutchings should draw a bill, and Sir William
accoept it. He looked upon the latter as the purchaser,
and just after the propositions were made he received a
letter from the brokers, acting in the matter, saying,
" You have never replied to Sir William's offer. "—Mr.
Thesiger here said that there were a large number of
letters which had passed between prosecutor,'
Heslopp, Watson, and others with reference
to this matter, and if a further adjournment
took place he must ask that he should
have access to them so that he might make himself fully
acquainted with their contents, because he should chew if
Watson and Heslopp -had used Sir William's name they
had done so most improperly, and that it was not a pur-
chase on-his part, but on the part of Hutchings, for the
Railway Company. Ho should like every letter put be.
fore his lordship, so that the matter might be sifted to the
bottom. The Lord Mayor said, the learned counsel was
entitled..to this.-7-Witness was subjected to a further
searching. cross-examination, the object being to shew
that .the whole transaction was concluded without
any communication direct with 'Sir William, and
his `answers were in many 'respects obtained
with great difficulty, and not until severe ,pressure was
applied. Mr. Thesiger asked that the further hearing
might be adjourned in order that he might see the whole
of the correspondence before concluding his cross-examina-
tion. :He said, emphatically, he made a charge of con-
spiracy against some of the parties concerned, and declared
he should shew conclusively that Sir William had
nothing to do with the purchase of the rails. After
a warm altercation between the. learned counsel on the
subject, it was agreed that the solicitor for the prosecu-
tion should hold the letters.—Mr. Thesiger said directly
the evidence was concluded he should be prepared to ad-
dress-his Lordship and meet the case, and the further
hearing was then adjourned.

04 Thursday evening, Mr. G. 0. Trevelyan, M.P.,
delivered an address on the reform of our army, at the
Co-operative Hall, Rochdale. •
Mr. TREVELYAN recapitulated the arguments which he
• had adduced on the previous evening against the purchase
system. He said that in the Cabinet, in the , House of
Commons, but to a greater extent in the country, there
was a deep-seated feeling, even among those who had
not an intimate acquaintance with military matters,
that there was something very wrong in the Horse
Guthds. ' The Duke of Cambridge had • his merits. He
had'n great knowledge of military detail.' He was a man
of great public spirit, but he was not' the man of the time.'
lATIO they wanted was a man whose mind was open to
rece,ive new impressions.. Of all the public men of whom
he had read anything, the mind of the DUke of Cam-
bridge was the most constitutionally closed against all
ne' impressions. They wanted a man who felt intensely
that the great thing to be • done was to raise
the British soldier: . The Duke 'of Cambridge had
been fourteen years at the-Horse Guards, and still all the
petty regulations by which' the soldier was made
to feel that he was a machine- had been kept up. 'None
had been altered except by decided pressure, and some he
refused to alter still. He was utterly unable to under-
stand what a member of Parliament, representing a
large constituency, was afraid of on this question.
A great many papers were afraid, for reasons best
knon to themselves, .to say what was known to he
the 7.ruth—that as long as the Duke 'of Cambridge held
his resent office they could only go from bad to worse,
from one depth of inefficiency and extravagance to another.
He had been told, not in the newspapers, but in private,
that they should not .attack an executive officer like
the Duke of Cambridge. The question however, • was.
not of attacking anybody. He did not think that
the motive which kept the pUblic from attacking the Duke
of Cambridge was the chivalrous feeling that he was
too humble an to be attacked. ' The ques-
tion was not of attacking anybOdy, but to Point out to the
Ministry the obstacles which 'must be removed befO're
they tould have a national army. He believed that the
greatest obstacle which existed, and the Most critical
abuse, was the 'presence of an officer 'great with the
prestige.of long service; still greater with the prestige
of his exalted rank in the office of commander-in-chief.
Such a position should never be filled by 'such a man. If
they continued that officer in his post, the consequence
would be that the GoVernment would adopt every wrong
or half measure, which, in so far as referred to the army,
was; worse than no measure Cat all, and when the session
andimillions were spent they ' would end by being where
they were before. (Cheers.) .