The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-24 00:00:00

j't6',4,„t 1,,,N4r IN
Iz4

SUN OFFICE, Seven, o'Clock.

THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. ISAAC
BUTT, M.P.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE.—THIS DAY.
The committee for investigating the charges in the
petition of Mr. Coffey against Mr. Isaac Butt re-assem-
bled this morning at 12 o'clock in No. 13, Committee-
room.

Mr. Roebuck said he should require Sir J. W. Hogg
and Mr. Mangles, chairman of the East India Company,
to be called as witnesses, as also the several clerks of
the banks who paid the cheques of Ali Moored.
Sir J. Graham said he would write a note to those
gentlemen requesting their attendance.
Sir James Graham to Mr. Coffey—Have you been
able to asoertain the precise date of the cheque handed
tojMr. Butt for attending the consultation ?
Mr. Coffey—My cheque is dated Febraary 15, 1857.
The cross-examination of Mr. Coffey by Mr. Deasy
was then proceeded with--In 1857 it was thought advis-
able that the Ameer should go to India. The Ameer
saw Mr. Vernon Smith, and it was his advice that the
journey should be undertaken as expeditiously as
possible. The Ameer and myself left London
the day the cheque for 1,9991. was drawn, the
29th of August. I did not tell my brother that
we were to sail by the packet of the 27th. We
stopped in Paris two days, and I believed we should
be able to reach Vienna the day after we quitted Paris.
We reached Dresden, to the best of my recollection on
the sth of September, after leaving Paris on the 27th of
the previous month. We reached Trieste on the 11th,
but the packet for Alexandria sailed on the 10th. We
were accompanied some part of the way by a lady named
Parr and her son. She remained at Trieste three or
four days. She was present when Mr. Elliot spoke of
Indian affairs. I was not dismissed from the Ameer's
service. He was my friend and I was not his servant.
When Mrs Farr parted with the Ameer she wentto Venice.
I went there and met her. I have been living lately in
London. lam a married man, but lam not living with
my wife. We are not separated. There was a differ-
ence between us in consequence of our religion. I first
told Mr. Roebuck about this petition eight or ten days
ago. I have had three or four interviews with that gen-
tleman. Mrs. Parr was present at the first of these in-
terviews. She has been taking an active part in this
petition, as she was referred to by inference, not by
name, by Mr. Butt, and it is to vindicate herself
from a foul aspersion that she now comes forward.
The aspersion is that I introduced her as my wife at the
interview in Vienna. I became aware that Mr. Butt
had made the assertion by a letter from my brother.
Before the receipt of the letter I had suspended pro-
ceilings. Some three or four days after I received the
letter I saw Mrs. Parr frequently, at her residence in
Bond-street.
Letters were here put in showing that the petitioner's
brother had remonstrated with him for introducing the
aoi-disani Mrs. Coffey.
Cro s-examination continued— Up to the receipt of that
letter I had only written to Mr. Vernon Smith, but I
had not taken any steps with respect to this petition. I
only commenced proceedings when Mr. V. Smith de-
clined to interfere. I received an answer to my applica-
tion to Mr. Smith on the 20th Sept. last. I have never
given a written statement of my case to Mr. Roebuck.
I never gave one to my parliamentary agent. Holmes
is the name of the gentleman who was my agent. He
acted for me up to the time, my petition was presented.
He is not acting for me now. He was engaged
in my business about eight days. The only
person I ever gave a written statement of the contents
of that petition was my brother.
Tee written statement forwarded by Mr. Coffey to
Mr. Vernon Smith was here put in and read by the
Chairman. The writer complained that Mr. Butt bad
accused him of attempting to sell the Ameer, that Mr.
Butt had drawn large sums of money from the Ameer
without ever accounting for them, that Mr. Butt had
informed the Ameer on the authority of the President of
the Board of Control that unless the Ameer dismissed
him (Mr. Coffey) he would never obtain satisfaction for
his claims from the British Government.
Another letter was read from Mr. Coffey toMr.Vernon
Smith, asking whether Mr. Butt was accredited by the
Board of Control to proceed to Trieste, also whether
Messrs. Irving and Langley had been appointed to
supersede him (Mr. Coffey), and also whether authority
had been given Mr. Butt by the Board of Coutrol to
inform the Ameer that unless he dismissed the writer he
would never obtain any satisfaction from the Board of
Control, and finally whether Mr. V. Smith had ever
accused him (Mr. Coffey) of selling the Ameer.
Cross-examination continued--The statementjust read
is correct. I have spoken to my law agents about the
statement, but in the preparation of the dooments just
read I was not assisted by any parliamentary agent. I
drew it up myself with the assistance of a gentleman
named Hale. My petition was presented to the House
of Commons four or five days after 1 saw Mr. Roebuck.
I made some statements to Mr. Roebuck, but they were
verbal. I sent a telegraphic message to Mr. Butt from
Trieste. It contained the words " cash safe."
Mr. Mangles and Sir J. W. Hogg here entered the
room, accompanied by Mr. Piinsep, and, as the examina-
tion of Mr. Coffey had not concluded it was arranged
that the evidence of Sir J. W. Hogg and Mr. Mangles
should be taken on Friday.
Mr. Prinsep then translated a Persian document
written by the Ameer arranging for the services of Mr.
Coffey as secretary for a period of three years, com-
mencing on the Ist of April, 1856 to the 30th of March,
180, at the salary of 1,000 rupees a month. The do-
cument specified that Mr. Coffey was to prosecute the
Ameer'e claims with the English Government.
A. letter was also translated from the Ameer to Mr.
Butt. It complained that Mr. Coffey had kept him for
15 days in a strange country, and continually made ex-
cuses to delay going on to Bombay. It said that Mr.
Coffey had given him no information, and prayed that
Mr. Butt would release him from his troubles, which
were like imprisonment.
Cross-examination continued—By
"cash safe" I meant
that I had some money. Before Mr. Butt left England
an arrangement was made that he should have 3,000/.
in cash, and 7,0001. in bills. The 3,0001. was not given
to Mr. Butt for the purpose of remunerating him for
staying a year in India. It was given him for doing
the Ameer service with the Indian Government.
By Mr. Roebuck—Mr. Butt had distinctly under-
taken to obtain from Mr. Vernon Smith a despatch
restoring the territory to the Ameer, and it was for
those services as well as his advocacy of the Ameer's
claims in Parliament that he was to receive the money.
Mr. loebuck—wag the money to be
paid for Mr.
Batt's influence with Parliament, the East India Com-
pany, and the Government, on behalf of the Ameer
Mr. Coffey—Decidely.
The Chairman—I
such a question looks like leading the witness.
The question was afterwards put in another form, but
the same answer was returned.
at were required.
Mr. Roebuck—Was
e money given to Mr. Butt
professionally don't like to interfere, but I think
Mr. Coffey—No ; Mr. Butt said it was not lawyers
ment of lawyers ; whet Lis, said was wanted was a num-
ber of members of Parliament knew the usages
who
of the house.
Mr. Roebucks—Did Mr. Butt ever tell yon that he
was authorized to sneak on behalf of Mr. Vernon
Re always objected to the employ.
Smith on the affairs of India
Mr. Cafey—Mr. Butt
with Mr. V. smith dailyin communication
• Re was
introduced the Amer and
himself to the President
of the Board of Control.
Tonticeecoirfchuimil sh‘tawniclYeTheahte
Mr. Roebuck—Did Ur. Butt speak as with the autho-
rity of Mr. Smith with respect to the despatch.
Mr. Coffey—Yee • certiinl In answer to further questions from the hon. gentle-
man, Mr. Coffey said Mrs. Parr was an old acquaint-
children.
Sir J. Graham—When was the petition of Ali Moored
seatedpre to the liaise° of Commons by Mr. Butt ?
Butt about money before the
led
Mey—ln June, 1856 mons r•
hhtearlmtoospt baeriscawlleads atoresleaetihveer.
Sir J. Graham—Had you any conversation with Mr.
tion I presentation of the peti-

Mr. Coffey—No, not till afterwards.
Sir J. Graham—What was the 8
tion with Mr. Butt between the pi
resentation of the
petition in June and the moving forp papers in July
Mr. Coffey—Mr. Butt said the advocacy of the claims
of Ali Moored would be attended with much expense of
time, and that he was not in a position to give up his
time without remuneration, u "rit of the conversa-
tion
especially as there
would be an immense responsibility in carrying on the
cage with Parliament and the Government.
Sir J. Graham—You are certain that this converse-
tion took place before the motion for papers I
Mr. Coffey—Certainly,
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake—How are you so oertain that
this conversation took place prior to the motion for
papers I
Mr. Coffey—Because I told the A.meer the papers
were actually necessary when I mentioxed the subject
to him.
Mr. Sergeant Kingleke—What formed the principal
point in your conversation with Mr. Butt respecting
money?
y stated that if it was
throughmr
worth .
hCoffey—Mr.isw
Parliament.h ile heß uwut
would
eudlidds
it
di tic
anc
rot lrt
the Ameer's claim
Ymention specific sum.
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake—Was there ever any person
present at any of these conventions ?
Mr. Coffey—No—no person but myself and Mr. Butt.
The examination of this witness then concluded, and
the committee adjourned until to-morrow.

THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK (This Day.)

at Ni6i Prisup%mal Jury.)
BENCH,
Lord
Campbell GUILDHALL.and
a
(Cs Oi t yi
nngT OF QUEEN'S.
before

THE QUEEN V. BROWN AND OTHERS.
TENTH DAY.

The trial of the information against the directors and
manager of the Royal British Bulk for c3nspirirg by
false pretences to defraud the shareholders and cus-
tomers and the public, Was this day resumed.
The same counsel appeared as before.
Mr. Atherton said that the prosecution had had time
to look into the remainder of the evidence they proposed
to call since the adjournment last night, and they had
come to the conclusion that after the intimation of his
lordship's opinion that no evidence should be given on