The Sun.
London, England, 1858-09-20 00:00:00

DEEP SEA TELEGRAPH.

The last failure of the Atlantic Telegraph has
naturally given rise to a variety of controversies as
to the cause of the break down in the undertaking.
Several confident opinions have been broached upon
the subject as well by nautical as scientific men,
but it yet remains to be ascertained where the real
fault lies. Mr. William Rowett of Leadenhall-
street, a gentleman of considerable nautical experi-
ence, has all along predicted that an iron cal*
would be found inapplicable to deep sea telegraphs,
and he now insists that some portion of the Atlan-
tic cable has been destroyed by its own weight, or
by the action of the sea. He suggests a number of
objections to the use of a metal covering in laying
down deep sea telegraphs ; the most potent of theta
all is that when it gets overstrained the tension
extends to the electric wire, and he believes that to
some such mishap must be attributed the recent
stoppage in the electric currents between Valentia
and Newfoundland. The cable he would apply to
the purpose should be composed of hemp, and he
has invented a cable made of that material which
he contends is free from the objections that an iron
cable is open to. In the first place a hemp cable
could be payed out with the utmost ease, and would
not be liable to accident from straining ; because
the hemp would give with the strain, while the
strain would be confined to the cable itself, and
would not extend to the electric wire which it con-
tained. Moreover, when the strain or pressure
ceased, a hemp cable would compress or contract
itself, whereas when once an iron cable is twisted,
or bent, or expanded, it never returns to its former
condition. Besides iron is far more liable to cor-
rupting influences than hemp, while submerged ;
indeed experience proves that sea water preserves
roping where it corrodes or destroys metal, and that
circumstance affords another strong reason for pre-
' ferring hemp to iron in laying down deep sea tele-
graphs. On Saturday a number of scientific and
naval gentlemen met at Mr. Rowett's offices, to in-
spect a specimen of this hemp cable, and hear ita
advantages explained. The sample produced weighs
about half a ton to the mile, and in paying out the
strain upon it would be at the rate of 251115. to tho
mile ; but Mr. Rowett explained that both the
weight and the specific gravity could be increased
to any extent—another advantage which hemp has
over iron. It could be so made as to require a day
or a week to sink it, and eminent scientific authori-
ties are of opinion that the Atlantic telegraph can
only succeed with the aid of a cable so light and
flexible that it will require some considerable time
to elapse before it finds its level. An objection
was raised that a hemp cable would be liable to
perish from the influence of the water ; but Mr.
Rowlett anticipates that eventually, by submitting
his cable to a mineral preparation that enters into
chemical combination with the fibres of the hemp
and renders it permanently impervious to the
actions of animalcules or other perishable influences.
It has, moreover, the strong recommendation of
economy. It could be laid down for £B6 per mile,
and foul weather would not impede its progreil. It
has been offered to the Atlantic Telegraph Com-
pany ; but, unfortunately, supposing they approved
of it, they can only answer, "We have spent all
our money."

THE DEFALCATIONS OF AN INCOME

TAX COLLECTOR.

On Saturday, an application was made to the
magistrates at Richmond, Surrey, sitting in Petty
Sessions, in the interest of Mr. Henry Burbridgo,
lately a collector of income tax for the parish of
Richmond, who has been confined in Horsemonger-
lane Gaol the greater part of a year awaiting his
trial on a charge of obtaining various sums of
money in the shape of property tax, with intent to
cheat and defraud. The prisoner, it appears, was
arrested early in December at the instance of the
Board of Inland Revenue on an affidavit of Mr. J.
C. Sells, the Surveyor of Taxes for the Kingston
District, which includes Richmond, in respect of
defalcations amounting, as alleged, to £713 6s.
The prisoner was collector of income tax for Rich-
mond for the years 1856 and 1857, and had received
large sums for the following year without being
appointed the collector, and which parties had to
pay over again. The £713 Os. which he is charged
with appropriating to his own use, includes
£438 Bs. 5d., admitted by himself to be the amount
of his defalcations for 1856-7, and £356 which he
is alleged to have received in 1857-8, under the
pretence of being the collector, when he was net
so in fact, making together £794 Bs. 5d., from
which he claimed to deduct £Bl odd, stated
by him to have been paid to the credit of
assessed taxes for 1856-7 for persons who after-
wards became defaulters to that amount. It seemed
that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the
first instance treated the prisoner simply as a
debtor, and on that view of the case his furniture
was sold in part satisfaction of the claim against
him by the Crown. Subsequently a different con-
struction was put upon his conduct, and he is now
awaiting his trial on the criminal charge. He ac-
tually ceased to be the collector in March, 1857,
but,,the collectors being annually appointed towards
the end of December, he continued collecting until
the 10th of that month, expecting, as a matter of
course, to be re-appointed. He admitted having
received the £356, in respect of 1857-8, irregularly,
in that he was not actually sworn in as the col-
lector; but contended that the commissioners having
allowed him to continue collecting, and afterwards
sold his goods in part payment of his deficiencies,
the offence of collecting in that year was condoned.
The contention of the prisoner also was, with re-
spect to his remaining defalcations, after excluding
the £356, that he had been originally treated as a
debtor by the Crown. This is a short summary of
the facts as elicited at previous hearings before the
magistrates, which ended in the prisoner being
committed for trial, and at the Petty Sessions at
Richmond on Saturday, held before Mr. Penrhyn
(chairman), Sir T. Reeve, Mr. W. Gilpin, and Mr.
H. C. Lacy, his professional adviser, Mr. all, com-
plained that the copy of the deposition en bs-
fore the magistrates, which had been supplied to
the prisoner at his request to assist him in per
et
ing for his defence was imperfect in several
portant respects, and especially that it did not--ew
tain facts favourable to the prisoner, elicited on the
cross-examination of Mr. Sells, on whose affidavit
the prisoner was arrested on the 16th of December.
He contended, in fact, that the depositions had
been falsified. He also complained that the Soli-
citor to the office of Inland Revenue persisted in
refusing to furnish papers which he had received
notice to produce on the prisoner's trial, and which
were calculated to place the matter in a light
favourable to the prisoner. Mr. Smith, the elerlF
to the magistrates, emphatically denied the impu-
tation that he had falsified any part of the deposi-
tions. A great part of the statements given in
evidence were irrelevant, and these he said he had
excluded on that ground from the depositions.
The bench told Mr. Hall that whatever omissions
might have been made in the depositions taken on
the preliminary hearings would not prejuduce
Mr. Burbridge on his trial, inasmuch as he could
produce what evidence he pleased in his defence ;
and Sir Thomas Reeve, one of the magistrates,
added that Mr. Jacobs, of the Inland Revenue-
office, had repeatedly stated that Mr. Hall had
asked him to produce papers on the prisoner's trial
which had, in fact, no existence.