The Sun.
London, England, 1869-02-18 00:00:00

begun and completed. These matters of fact,
notwithstanding Mr. EDWARDS'S " confusion " at
the Guildhall, are in no wise altered in the explana-
tory document. The LORD CHANCELLOR will base
his judgment upon the story, but the story itself is
of the plainest description. All that Mr. EDWARDS
does in the way of mitigation is to subject
his evidence to a species of reductio ad
absurdunz reasoning. He solemnly denies that he
used any information derived from his official posi-
tion for the benefit of OVEREND, GURNEY, and Co.
The £5,000 lent to Mr. CHAPMAN was made over
from motives of the purest friendship. His relations
with OVEREND, GURNEY, and Co. were no secret,
and the gift of the yacht by Mr. STEFANOS XENOS
was also notorious. Mr. EDWARDS pleads that the
commission he received from Mr. Z. C. PEARSON
was received with the full knowledge of at least
Mr. HENRY GURNEY. From these and other
similar arguments he deduces that his business
transactions out of the Bankruptcy Court
were not improper, and were merely for the purpose
of eking out a reduced income. To investigate
such a conclusion now that Mr. EDWARDS is himself
on trial would be trenching upon delicate ground;
but it may be observed that some of the gravest
points of the Guildhall revelations are wholly
untouched. It is somewhat surprising to
learn that the LORD CHANCELLOR of 1864
called Mr. EDWARDS to account for his dealings with
OVEREND, GURNEY, and Co. But taking Mp.
EDWARDS'S answer, " that he was undertaking
arbitrations, references, and negotiations," in the
fullest acceptance of the words, it is clear that it
does not describe the nature of his extra-official
work. He did not say that he was a paid official
adviser. Nor does he explain how he got the
appointment with the discount company ; nor how
in many other cases he was paid by various firms
for driving hard bargains with them in the interest
of OVEREND, GURNEY, and Co.

On the important point whether his receipt of
commissions was sanctioned by the directors who
employed him, Mr. EDWARDS and the directors them-

selves are hopelessly at variance. But as Mr,
EDWARDS contradicts himself on other important
points, the calculation of probabilities is not diffi.

cult. Tie first affirms that his official knowledge
was not used for the benefit of the discount coin-

pang, and then, in a very remarkable series of

revelations, states that it was. We now learn that
one of the chief duties of the principal adviser was to

keep certain ruined firms out of bankruptcy. The
discount company was so involved that the revela-

tions of a bankruptcy court would have produced
an immediate catastrophe. " With all cases
with which he had to deal," he was to avoid
the Gazette at any cost. Had this employ-
ment no connection with his position as official

assignee ? Yet this was the work upon which he

laboured " night and day," and so far successfully.
It must be owned that he faithfully carried out the
"scheme of concealment" which had been laid down,
and kept estates out of bankruptcy. But though he
made himself master of all the firms with which he

had to deal, he did not fail likewise to

make himself' master of the discount firm
. _

He gained such knowledge of this great concern
that everything he asked for was conceded to him.
It was then that his destructive powers came into
full play, and everything commercial crumbled up
before him, as if touched by a magician's wand. The
GURNEYS might well have paid £5,000 a year to
escape his advice ; but this could not be. The
rupture came at last; but Mr. EDWARDS'S know-
ledge was still in his hands, and by means
of it he insisted on receiving gentlemanly treatment,
and upon being paid £20,000. His scheme of con-
cealment was so effectually carried out that he con-
cealed both his own and his employers' transactions
from 1804 until bis defective memory recalled a part
of them in 1809. Mr. EDWARDS'S explanation ex-
plains much.

LATEST INTELL ME GE

(REU-ER'S TELEGRAMS.)