The Sun.
London, England, 1869-11-13 00:00:00

MR GRENVILLE MURRAY AND THE
FOREIGN OFFICE.

The case of "Grenville Murray v. the Earl of Clarendon
and James Murray " came before the Master of the Rolls
on Friday on demurrer. It is a suit instituted by Mr. Gren-
ville Murray (whose name was recently very prominent as
complainant for assault against Lord Carrington, and
defendant to a charge of perjury) against the Earl of
Clarendon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Mr.
James Murray, Under Secretary of the same department,
to recover remuneration alleged to be due to the plaintiff
for services in her Majesty's diplomatic service. Mr.
Southgate, Q.C., and Mr. Gill were for the plaintiff ; Sir
Roundell Palmer, Q.C., and Mr.Wickens for the defendants.
The bill filed by the plaintiff was of unusual length, and
gave an account of the plaintiff's experiences in the
diplomatic service since the year 1841, when he was first
employed by Lord Palmerston. It stated that between
that date and 1851 he was sent at his own cost on special
service to Algiers, Barbary, Spain, and Germany. During
this time he became acquainted with abuses in the service,
one of these being a system of agencies which was still
practised, whereby the defendant James Murray (who was
not related to the plaintiff) and John Bidwell, and others
received the salaries of the officers and retained them at
their bankers for an indefinite period. These persons had
great influence with the Secretary of State, and these sala-
ries were allowed to accumulate in the hands of the
defendant, promotion being thus retarded. In
1852 the plaintiff was appointed paid attachd
to Vienna. At this time an article appeared in
the newspapers exposing the abuse of the system of
agencies ; and this being attributed to him, he had been
subjected to persecutions by the defendant Murray and
others ever since. He was refused the emoluments of his
appointment, and transferred to the Court of Hanover, at
a loss of £2,000. He was afterwards appointed paid
attaché at Constantinople, but was subsequently degraded
from that post, and in 1853 sent to Lesbos as Vice-Consul
in Mytelene. In 1854 obtaining leave of absence he
returned to Constantinople, and applied to be
reimbursed his expenses of £5OO. This had
always been refused and he was sent backwards
and forwards between Constantinople and London on pre-
text of public service. He was thus put to an expense of
£l5O, properly chargeable to the Foreign Office ; but he
had never been repaid. At length he was offered the post
of Vice-Consul at an unhealthy place in Africa; and
declining this, was appointed in January 1857 paid attaché
to the Embassy in Persia. But at this time diplomatic
relations had been suspended, and he was ordered to join
the British mission wherever he could find it. Following
it through the perils of war, at great risk and expense, he
succeeded in joining it at Bagdad. His charges and
expenses amounted to £650. On the 24th July, 1858,
he received the appointment of Consul-General for the
Russian ports and the Sea of Azof, to reside at Odessa.
Before leaving England he received £250 on account of the
sum of £650. the balance being still due. In October,
1858, James Murray was made permanent Under-Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, and in this capacity exercised great
power. He made a colourable and fictitious sale of his
business of agent to Mr. Bidwell. The plaintiff was not a
customer of that agency, which ho considered an abuse,
thereby incurring the dislike of James Murray, who, having
control of the financial affairs, subjected him to great loss.
Ey his influence the emoluments of Consul-General were
reduced from £1,350 to £1,200, instead of which this
ought to be raised to 4000 ; and the plaintiff
claimed the deficit. The defendant, James Murray, com-
menced from that time a system of frivolous accusations,
against the plaintiff, putting him to great expense in
answering them, and subjecting him to other annoyances.
In November 1860, obtaining leave cf absence, he left Mr.
James Perkins to act in his absence. The defendant sought
to have Mr. George Alexander Stephens appointed, but
failing in that, took advantage of tho plaintiff's absence
from Odessa to conspire with others to ruin him. Plaintiff
was detained in England answering false charges, and his
papers were seized at Odessa. On his return he received a
despatch from Lord Stanley (then Foreign Secretary),
accusing him of irregularities in connection with the
Consular Marriage Act. Other false charges were
brought against him respecting fees, the granting of
passports, and certificates, and other matters ; and, his
papers having been taken away, he was at a loss how to
answer. All these charges, ho alleged, were the result of
the conspiracy; and, in April, 1867, a Mr. Wilkins was ap-
pointed to make a local inquiry into the matter. Plaintiff
considered Mr. Wilkins incompetent to make such an in-
quiry, and at its close he entered into correspondence
with Lord Stanley with a view of bringing the affair to a
conclusion. It was not, however, until February, 1868,
that he received a copy of what purported to be Mr.
Wilkins' report, but which he alleged to be a tissue of
falsehoods, artfully mingled with truth, and prefaced

by James Murray. The' result was that in May,
1868, the plaintiff was deprived of his post,
his demand for another inquiry being refused. He denied
the right of the Secretary of State to cancel his commis-
sion in this manner; and in December last, on the acces-
sion to office of the present Ministry, submitted his case
to Lord Clarendon. His lordship replying that he saw
no ground for altering his predecessor's decision, the

plaintiff applied for his pension. It was then pointed out
to him that he could receive no pension unless he obtained
a certificate from the Foreign Secretary, testifying that ho

had performed his duties satisfactorily, and such certifi-
cate was refused him. By reason of these proceedings,
plaintiff said he was reduced to unmerited poverty and
distress, having expended his own fortune in the service
of the State, and having been unjustly dismissed after

twenty-seven years' service, upon frivolous charges, which
had not been proved. He urged that the Foreign Office
received from the Treasury £OOO,OOO a year as a trust fund

for its officers, and out of this fund the plaintiff ought to
havo been paid the sums he now claimed. These sums
were owing to him either by the defendant Lord Cla-
rendon or the defendant John Murray; but the latter
having control of the said fund, had retained the money
due to the plaintiff for his own use. He, therefore, prayed
for a declaration that he had not been properly removed
from his office, and that he was still entitled to its emo-
luments. He further asked that his claims might be paid
under a decree of the court, and that, if necessary, an
inquiry should be made into the accounts of the Foreign
Office since James Murray was made superintendent of
the financial business.

Sir Roundell Palmer, in commenting on the paragraphs
of the bill of complaint, said it seemed to have been partly
used as a peculiar method of setting the plaintiff's services
and wrongs before some portion of the public; while it was
secondly, an appeal against her Majesty's executive Govern-
ment to his lordship, and treated certain heads of depart-
ments representing her Majesty as trustees accountable to
that court. In order to prove a trust to be administered
by the court, the original of that trust must be shewn.
But the whole business of the Treasury was
under the control of Parliament, and the idea that one
could bring into that :court public accounts and the
administration of public funds by allegations of this descrip-
tion was most preposterous. If the plaintiff had claims
against the Crown, the Petition of Right was his legal
remedy.

Mr. Southgate argued on the other side, that this was
not a case of suing the Crown, and quoted cases in support
of this mode of proceeding.

Mr. Gill was heard on the same side,

The Master of the Rolls said that he was of opinion that
the demurrer must be allowed. It would not do for o
person to say that A. B. had got a friend in trust
and must accordingly come under the jurisdiction of
the court, unless there were facts to shew that the re-
lations of the plaintiff to the trust were such
as to give the court jurisdiction. It mighi
be that this was an extremely hard case ; that the
Foreign Office had dealt with great harshness in deprivin:_,
the plaintiff of his situation, his allowance, and his retir
ing pension ; but that was not a matter of which this court
could take cognisance. The office of Consul did not appear
to be a patent office, but to be held at the pleasur:
of the sovereign as expressed by her Secretary of
State, and therefore he could not declare that the plaintiff
had not been properly dismissed. As to his claim for
reimbursement, it was not shown how his expenses had
been incurred. The sum of £600,000 was paid for the
general purposes of the department. Its distribution was
left to the officers of that department, and there was
nothing in the bill to connect Mr. Murray with that dis-
tribution. It was impossible for the court to examine the
accounts of the Foreign Office for eleven years.
The demurrer of the defendants was accordinglyallowed.

The Western Mail makes the statement that a
London assurance office last week declined to insure the
produce of one cf the finest farms on Colonel Powell's
estate in Cardiganshire, because the farm, which was once
in the occupation of a Disscnter and a Radical, has
lately passed into the hands of a Churchman and a Con-
servative:

A NEW VELOCIPEDE.—Visitors to the Crystal.
Palace during the last few days have been struck by
somathi:ig novel at last, among the many v,Lcipede.,
which the present demand has brought forth. For
some time past the want of a machine combining
speed with comfort, safety with easy recreation,
has been felt, and velocipedes have been denied
to the invalid and the aged. In this new
machine (ratented by Messrs. Farrell and Turner, of
Dublin), the old system of working with the feet is dis•
pensed with; the weight of the body, thrown alternately
on the saddle and on the footboard, as in horse riding.
becomes the moving power, and the machine glides for.
ward with ease, and, according to the skill of the rider,
with rapidity. Ladies, it is said, can ride on it with tin
same OaSC as on horseback.