The Sun.
London, England, 1869-11-08 00:00:00

THE LElCill IiUNI MEMORIAL.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
SIR,—Mr. TownsheudMayer having, in a letterfo
you publicly censured my action in connection wit!!
the Leigh Hunt Memorial Fund as " very unwise,
I think you will allow me to make some statement
in reply, in which, of course, I speak only for 01:
self. A great deal of confusion exists as to v
original estimate of the cost of toe memorial.
Mayer, in a letter to the Daily News, published.
August, 1868, mentioned £l2O. Your own leadino
article of Tuesday, Nov. 2, speaks of the same sub
,„:
A con espondent of the Pall Mall Gazette of Sat%
day also says £l2O ; and Mr. Walter Hunt, Lelg
Hunt's grandson, says in a letter to me, dated Oet
28, 1869, that Mr. Durham originally undertook It'
execute the monument for about £lOO, that a litt„to
later Mr. Hall announced that the total anict„
required would be "some £120," that this WI
what was understood at the committee meeting eo,
October 26, 1868 ; but that, on Mr. Durham askit'e
for some personal remuneration for his labour, th
committee subsequently voted him £l5O, war,
would leave him a margin of £3O or £35. w't,
Walter Hunt was present at this committee of
ing, as I myself was ; and my own memory of t
course of events is the same as his, only 100 era;
phatically expressed, for whereas he says L'to
" there can be no sort of question" as to the I`7„,r
above stated, I admit the possibility of our he'"f
both mistaken in the exact order of proceeding
though it is strange that, without any concert, 1/.5
should both think the same. Mr. Durham, in,bol6
letter to you, dated November 4, speaks of e.
(one hundred guineas) as the original cost Pilo
On the other hand, it must be admitted that '
prospectus, dated September 2, 1868 (to which 0,3:
name, as hon. sec., is attached as a matter of WI
together with Mr. Hall's and Mr. Mayer's, th°ll,ll,o
I had nothing to do with the composition nil be
document), says the estimated cost would r 0
" about £150." Be that as it may, r.
have been paid by the committee to Mr. vit
ham for carrying out the original design., is,
was found necessary, however—or, at least, ad t,
able—to extend the original design; and at the west,
ing of July 27, 1869 (at which I was not preseo ,
being out of town), Mr. Durham, as I am inforn;
stated what he bad done in the way of making ks,
memorial more complete ; and these extra w°r,is,
involving, of course, extra expenses, were not °the
approved by the committee. At a meeting cin of
26th of last October Mr. Durham made a clai.inre.
£4l for the extras, and offered Mr. Mayer his r,
ceipts for the money expended on them, which
COr
Mayer refused to take. It was allowed by the -the
mittee that although there had been an error on oa
part of Mr. Durham in not specifically stating „i,
the 27th of July that the extra works had nece:3l
tated extra expenses, and in not obtaining a for
vote of authorisation, he had nevertheless the
claim for the money ; and it was agreed thatk e
members of the general committee should be °bat
to assist in supplying the sum required, to,
that the matter should not be made P110,3c1
Mr. Mayer refused to make the appeal. ; the
accordingly I, seeing the difficulty in whle-atee
fund was placed, and believing, as the colivn"bocl
believed, that Mr. Durham (whether or not hew)
been allowed a profit of £3O on the orignal c1.e5.017,01
would be actually out of pocket if his addle reed
expenditure of £4l was not returned him, a.t.
to send out a circular, the money in hand hoarder
adequate to the demand. For so doing, Air• think
now publicly blames me. But what will you the
when I tell you that, after the committee °f ill
26th of last month broke up, Mr. Mayer actssiv.
assisted me in the composition of the circular a 0
ing for more money ; that that circular is 04.8Tiere
extent his own writing; that seven copies of iv
rein,
made at his office, in his presence, by a near were
five, and signed by me ; that these letters that
furnished with postage stamps by him; and
ibersl
he pointed out to me, in a list of the sul?serbehoft
the names of those gentlemen who, in his
App ugh?
to
would be most likely to give more, if the 814"
the general committee failed to bring enenoesed
When I left that evening, 1 naturally snPr peal
that Mr. Mayer's objection was not to the gaiter
per se, but to making it himself, What
having announced that the fund was closed. ; two
will you think, furthermore, when I say 0'3;001
days later, Mr. Mayer, unknown to me, sen,itp;iollo
"
to certain newspapers a paragraph, "e°ool
to expose our difficulties and disagree ear
ear
to prejudice Mr. Durham, and to thwart ea,;slo
barrass me in any attempt to carry out the 1100
of the committee—an attempt with which, as hint'
just shown, he had in a measure cor,oeote,-bieh
self? But this is not all. In an interview gib
had with Mr. Mayer on the evening of the 'ect
October, I found him very violent with relg all
Mr. Durham, and could perceive he was de/ o
je/1
he could against him, though at that time whia',,
nothing of the paragraphs to the newspaPeren'raitti.ca,,
had just been sent round. Our ennv`ourpriev
brought out the facts—which I heard with of tb
—that Mr. Mayer had no evidence whatecl
50
way in which Mr. Durham had spent the aup
him for the execution of the design as it °,l. be
stood; that, in fact, he was ignorant ,o` he W 7„,
pense of the work, and that, consequently'
not in a position to affirm that Mr' area
was acting unfairly by the fund. It aPPd eheu't
me that he, as financial officer of the flin 'ea thAo
have been better informed. I had snPrft $154;
he was satisfied with regard to the origo.o-0. as ;0
and that (apart from the dubious (Inestaa tni
whether Mr. Durham had been allowe'-' d hee
ha for
anything for himself) his only doubt $4l
to
with relation to the additional claim oLeeroed
extras ; a doub t the grounds of which see. Da.
have been removed by the statements a Pi
r, 3 de'
ham in committee on the 26th of Octohenlayer ia
the resolution of the committee. AI!. 'to ohtlif
nied that he was under any obligationtiequell
accounts from Mr. Durham, yet he str e.°o,
volunteered to do so. That is to say, havingtry 111:1
demned Mr. Durham, he proceeeed thfivor
Now, I wish it to be distinctly understov_isaot
do not come forward as the advocate, Palbst ge,„,
friend of Mr. Durham. I only know ',ad I Tee
tleman in connection with the memorialiis'o jasPeb,
sire nothing more and nothing less the ed,
should be done to the fund and wooocerPoir
scribers, and to all the persons. of co,
But 1 object to the principle aftero to
demnation first, and investigation to his 15, to
1 object to Mr. Mayer taking the law irl..„,raPb:orl
hands, secretly sending prejudicial pal;ple
the papers, working in private to the, then P r
while the matter was yet sub judice, an had toe,
licly censuring me in a matter wherein iatena
viously given me his assistance and c.°'
If he thought Mr. Durham was not actingA his cea
the fund, he should have first consuit7ggeS of
leagues, Mr. Hall and myself, and have. tigaticphis
a special committee meeting for theinv'oiebt for
the whole matter, instead of acting se is ootetot
own motion and authority. The °sand I clAasi
either me or Mr. Mayer to determine,. the
not all will be satisfactorily adjusted 0.7
arbitrators.

lam Sir, yours obediently, op,
,
EDminiv oiii,
10, Victoria-grove, South Kensington'
Nov. 6, 1869.
,00'
TO THE EDITOR OF TUE ST-114,' t the r;,,0
SIR,—It has been pointed out to me tpil,,,oress;„"g
sage in my letter which appeared in your ',Vortisrao
of the sth inst., " I had to spend £l3 may3"b" 0 tfo:,3
in 1868 to restore public confidence," rigivo`;',
praiset
oihevenertso ofhfr memorial.
eomp
literature
as a reflection on Mr. S. C. Hall, vill°:°„-te-rpr',f-;
never hesitated to say, Mr. Hall deserves t.bile ottot j
anodnA
tythhoeuwweirlidegrlanutemede
isnpatcheeinhuwrrhyic
swgratefull
nr
eirtnrehattalee-nn,
kicl)seudtottf I
in iit; :,
:-
:bar4l ihit s:.
0::
lovers
relatives, friends, and admirers in 'Artie- slat b 9
ohfltowsheraxi
tiPilnile,./I:lll33arAvetvi ping
en but about two hours in which to penile pi)of
tot Mr. Durham—l abeyance,` t ;et
that though in y the Prt be..o
al memorial to Leigh Iluut bad Oaccitolvve,
,bandoned by Mr. Hall ; and t° ,bo glii,
them with the names of the gentletnen ve0"111
_him their co-operation as members of u4r. a,
formed committee." In August, 18689 '''tile trettlee
C' atisf..ctorily explained in the Daily Neulod o'4h
son icr much of the three years' delaYl, Do
castbv
his great service in the matter it woul",_ to
~•t
unjust and ungracious of me grata to
ttipf,
reflection on him. I am authorised tuo_s to s
_utli
rather than the public should be called
,r.uptillitlio
scribe for the ground purchased bY I‘•Lber, of 0
for the Leigh Hunt memorial a But there
~fg.., ,
family will pay the sum demanded. -I.J fly
S. E. TowNsiltsp ''
no need for either.—l am, sir, yours faitvgAlS.
25, Norfolk street, Strand, W. 0.,
Nov. 6, 1869.