The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-12 00:00:00

LON D ON, SATURDAY EVENING, J ULY 12, 1856.

From the London Gazette of Lazt,

FOREIGN-OFFICE, MAY 29.
The Queen has been graciously pleased to appoint Thomas
Fott Hughes, Esquire, now attached to her 2.l,kjesty's
Embassy at Constantinople, to be her Majesty's Consul at
Erzeroum. •

FOREIGN-OFFICE, JULY 4.
The Queen has been graciously pleased to anpoint
Charles Batten Hillier, Esquire, t) be her Majesty's Consul
at Bangkok, in Siam.
FOREIGN OFFICE, JULY 11.
Whereas divers British subject', who have entered into
engagements for employment abroad as railway labourers,
miners, engineers, stokers, and firemen, on board steam
vessels, and in other capaities.(such engagements in gene-
ral containing no .provision for the maintenance of such
British subjects, or for furnishing them with the moans of
returning to this country), have applied to her Majesty's
Consols in foreign parts for relief as distressed British
subjects, and considerable expenie has been incurred in
relieving such persons, and in , sending them back
to this country : Notice is hereby given that for the
future all personi who accept engagements in foreign coun-
tries, as such railway labourers, miners, engineers, stokers,
and firemen, as aforesaid, or in any other capacity, are
not considered by her Majesty's Government. to be en-
titleirtO relief as distressed British subjects, or to be sent
back to this country at the public expense; and such per-
sons are hereby warned that her Majesty's Consuls abroad
have received orders henceforward not -to afford relief in
such cases.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne District C:nut. Baker, official
assignee, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Story, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
John Gourlie or Gourlay, portioner, Motherwell.
Peter Living grocer,. l)umfermlino.
Sir Willi:Ara-Henry Don, Bart., underwriter, Edinburgh.

BANK OF ENGLAND.
An Account pursuant to the Act 7th and Bth Victoria, cap, 32, fo
the Week ending on Saturday the sth day of July, 1856.

4

General, and referred. to every docum .t, and I should,
if so required, have postponed giving judgment. .On
, the 20th of June, after I had given judgme t, the At-
torney-General's counsel and the Crown solicitor waited
on me in the Rolls Chamber. Why was the visit post-
poned until then ? Of what use was the visit at that
time, if the Attorney-General be right that James Sad-
leir bad ceased to be amenable on the 17th or 18th of
June? Who is responsible that no step was taken
to ascertain whether James Sadleir was implicated
from the 3d of June until after I had given judgment
on the 20th of June ? No amount of mystification cal
_et rid of that plain inquiry. ' The real history is this :
The Master bad exonerated James Sadleir on grounds
which the public do not understand. There was abun4
Omit evidence against Janies Sadleir, independently of
John Sadleir's letter,- which was not found until after
the 3d of June. The Attorney-General paid no atten
bun to the observations Made by me on that day, which
shoWed that I had corns to entirely d•fferent conclusiong
from the Master, although I bad not seen John Sadleir's
letter at the time. The Attorney-General thought,
presume, that I should not 'be able' .when giving judge
ment, to sntOantiatethe statement I had made, and he
reenaine'd naseive until the judgment vihicli I gave on the
20th of June rendered it• plain that he must cease td
hold office or perform his .duty to the public. It was,
hirwever, according to his statement then too late
James Sadleir, he gam is no longer awe sable, and Vial
belae not been so since the 17th or 18. h of June, and
he thinks it just and proper to cast the respinsibilitj
on me, that he is not amenable. Let him first exoi
nerate • himself from the heavy charge of not having
taken -illing!et step until after I hid giver' jiidgment
on the 20th of June, to ascertain whether three wsd
evidence to implicate Jemes Sadlelr, Let him not
imagines that. he can -his sophiltry mystify
that question. What the public want to know, is
this—First, why did—her take no trouble to investlgatl
the charges .publicly and .openly, made against Jai:glee
Sadleir between the 4th of March and the 3d of June 1
Secondly, why not :attempt to investigatei
those charges between the 3d of June and the 20th of
Julie I _Thirdly, why did he omit to investigate a single
faction reitelea,aingle:document affecting James Sadleirl,
until entitle ceased. to be amenable ? He read, I prei
some, 'Jo iii Sadleir's letter on the 14th of June, but
that letter,; per se; afforded no evidence against James:
This is a most grave- and serious charge," and isnot to
be got rid of by any insinuation that I am responsible.
I now conclude with these inquiries. Was it I who
was te blamethat the,Attorney-General took no trouble
to investigate the gigantic frauds of the bank, or to
make James Sadleir amenable between the sth of
March and the 3d-of June. Was it I who was to blame
that the Attorney-General did not take out a copy of
any affidavit from the Master's office between the 3d of
June and the 20th of June, or adopt the necessary
proceedings to make James , Sadleir, amenable during
that periodle' The letter of Sohn ''Sadleir, of which the.
Crown Solicitor was in possession on the 14th of June,
renders the bmission to take any step or make any in-
quiry whether James Sadleir could be connected there-
with thernoreinexcusable. Was it .my fault that the;
Attorney-General took no steps until after the 20th of
June, when he had ascertained that JameS Sadleir had
ceased to be amenable ? I have no apprehension of
leaving it to the decision of the public as to ' the
person on Whom the blame rests,. and the Attorney-
General 'may rest assured that no sophistry or mystifica-
tion can get rid of the•plain.unvarnished detail of facts
whiohj :have put forward in my own defence, and which
can neither be gainsayed nor denied.