The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-21 00:00:00

land, that even criminals should have fair treatment.
And one of the most settled maxims of justice in the
English mind, a maxim equally respected by the
Judge on the bench and by every reputable pro-

secut3r, is, that no man shall be compelled to give
an answer likely to criminate himself. Even to these
very trials the Solicitor-General came armed with
QUEEN'S pardons, to enable the witnesses to give
evidence safely, though with that protection the
judge differed in opinion as to whether the wit-
ness was compelled to answer, " as it would be a
calumny upon him, and his name would suffer."
Foreign nations take a somewhat different view of

the matter. But we Englishmen have no doubt on

the point.

It was just here, then, that the House of Com-
mons felt it had not entire conviction that it
was fair to prosecute the criminals. Of their guilt

there was no doubt, The wholesale and retai

transactions were as patent to the public as the
best kept accounts to Messrs. QUILTER and BALL,
But how had these accounts been got at? By in-

terrogating the criminals themselves, who one and
all gave their evidence expecting, if they told the

truth, to receive their indemnity. We cannot
now recal the particulars of the behaviour
of the subordinates But that of the two
principals left on our minds the clear impres-
sion, that Mr. CHARLESWORTH did equivocate,
till the evidence of others made equivocation
useless, when he told the whole truth; Mr. Sergeant
PIGOTT expressing a rather strong opinion on the
character of his evidence. Mr. LEATHAM gave
evidence of bribery quite as bad on his part, and of
adroit management of his share in the transaction,
through "My dear EDMOND" in London—to wit,
Messrs. OVEREND, GURNEY, and Co.; but we do not
remember that the commission complained in his case
of either equivocation or suppression, and there did
not seem to be any. Yet both he and Mr. CHARLES-
WORTH were refused their certificates ; a prevalent
notion being, that Mr. LEATHAM lost his to
preserve the appearance of impartiality. Be that
as it may, the feeling in the House and in the
country doubtless was, and is, that much as the
criminals deserve the conviction, and its conse-
sequences, too, the conviction was gained by the
violation of what we all believe to be fair play.
The mischief of all this is obvious. Mr. LEATH-
IIAM, and perhaps his collegues in conviction also,
will complain of martyrdom. We are made,
they will say, victims of accepting the
public faith. In reliance on that faith, we
told you all our wickedness, and now
you inflict on us not only the mortification of con-
fession, but the penalties of law. Other delin-
quents will, of course, be more chary of telling
their story. As well go to prison for not answer-
ing as for oar answers being used against us. Some
think such convictions will put down bribery;
will they not rather put down commissions of in-
quiry ? Mr. LEATHAM in his dungeon, reflecting
how his own evidence brought him there, we may
almost imagine quoting BYRON'S description of the
struck eagle, who—
" Viewed his own feather on the fatal dart
And winged the shaft that quivered in his heart,
Keen were his pangs, but keener far to feel
He nursed the pinion which impelled the steel."

We do not know that he would not even preface
the quotation by another—
" Oh, what a noble heart was here undone.
When Brib'ry's self destroyed her noblest son."

But leaving Mr. LEATHAM to find such resem-
blance as he may between himself and KIRKE
WHITE, we think it clear that the process by com-
mission is a failure. These convictions prove
it more clearly than ever. The complaint has always
been that no consequences follow commissions. The
towns, the corrupters, and the corrupted don't mind
the more exposure. Well, at last we have convic-
tions, and every one feels that they are just. But
the very fact that they are gained by unjust methods
in the first process awakens sympathy for the con-
victed. So it must ever be with bribery. You
may extort the evidence, but if you do, the country
revolts frem your using it against the person. You
may decline to coerce witnesses to speak, and then
you can get noevidence. Our Act-makers may
flounder on as they please ; they will do nothing
and can do nothing, till they have conscience
enough to accept the preventive they so dread.
They must try the ballot.

The Thames Embankment Committee has con-
ducted its inquiries steadily and laboriously to a close.
From addressing itself to engineers—it turned

its attention at last to wharfingers. Of the latter
class of witnesses it called up eleven at a single
sitting—subjecting these, one after another, to a
searching examination. Among all classes affected
by the proposed change this is precisely the very
one that might naturally be expected to look upon
this innovation with the very smallest amount of

complacency. And any such expectation will be
found fully borne out by the tone of the evidence
elicited from the whole of these Thames
wharfingers. The only one out of the whole num-
ber who gave anything like a generous support to
the suggestion was Mr. KENNARD who—be it said
to his honour—appeared rather to rejoice over the
prospective good opening up to the public at large
through the development of this long-meditated
scheme of the Thames Embankments than to
bewail over the possibility of consequent inconve-
niences affecting himself individually. Mr. KEN-
NARD'S evidence was to the effect that
while he himself occupied business pre-
mises on the banks of the Thames—

he could not help feeling, in the first instance, in
regard to the proposed improvement, that "an
embankment would give great facilities from the
City to the West-end, and at the same time greatly
relieve the crowded streets, so that it would be a
public convenience." That—which was manifestly
the second thought of the other witnesses—ap-
peared to be Mr. KENNARD'S first consideration.
He maintained, before the Committee of Inquiry,
in his character as a Thames wharfinger, that the
projected embankment " would be a great public
improvement, and would be the best way of giving
facilities for traffic between both ends of the
town." Estimating his character simply through

,he medium of the light thrown upon

through his evidence before the Committee, we
should certainly feel disposed to regard Mr.
KENNARD as distinguishable, among the rest of the
wharfingers subjected to examination, by the pos-
session of a more cheerful and sanguine tempera_
ment. While others looked askance, with
jealousy and suspicion at the meditated
scheme of the Thames Embankments, Mr.
KENNARD, in reply to one of the queries
addressed to him, observed that "he did not think
it (the embankment) would injure his premises."
Adding, that "all it would do would be to increase
the expense of his business"—remarking immedi-
ately thereupon, "But it was the duty of every one
to give up something to effect a great convenience."
That is a frank and manly declaration, worthy of
an Englishman. As additional evidence, however,
of the witness's amiable disposition to make the
be'st of everything, let it be also here taken into
account that, while other wharfingers who were
examined as witnesses before the committee grum-
bled loudly against the necessity that might pro-
ibably be thrust upon them of moving their