The Sun.
London, England, 1867-11-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. THURSDAY EVEN) M, NOVEIVIBEII 21, 1867.

The Condemned Convicts at Manchester.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR, —I beg to enclose a copy of the statement
submitted by myself and my learned friends for the
consideration of Mr. Justice Blackburn and Mr.
Justice Mellor, with the reply of Mr. Justice
Blackburn, which I have his permission to publish.
I will not pause at present to examine the grounds
of their lordships' decision ; but, with the sincerest
respect for their high authority, I must say that the
consideration thereof, and a calm perusal of the
reasons alleged in its support, have not changed my
matured and deliberate conviction that the opinion
of myself and my learned friends is law. Were
this not so, it must occur to every lawyer, and,
indeed, to every citizen uninfluenced by prior
opinions, or, it may be, prejudices, that in a ques-
tion of such solemn gravity—one of life and death,
involving the fate of four human beings—an argu-
meht on the points suggested would have been
more in accordance with precedent, and more
consistent with the protective vigilance and im-
partiality which have always characterised the
administration of the criminal law in England.—l
am, sir, your obedient servant,

Temple, Nov. 20.

'WILLIAM DIGBY SEYMOUR.

STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO MR. JUSTICE BLACKBURN
AND MR. JUSTICE MELLOR.
REGINA V. ALLEN AND OTHERS.

Upon the trial of Allen and others for the murder
of Sergeant Brett, two points of law arose under
the following circumstances :
On the morning of the 11th Sept. last, two men,
who turned out afterwards to be Kelly and Deasey,
were arrested by a Manchester policeman, as he
al!eged, under sect. 216 of the Manchester Police
Act (7 and 8 Vict., chap. 40), which enacts that it
shall be lawful for any constable belonging to the
police force of the borough to take into custody,
without a warrant, all loose, idle, or disorderly per-
sons whom he may find disturbing the public peace,
or in his own view committing an offence against
this act, or whom he shall have good cause to sus-
pect of having committed, or being about to commit,
any felony, misdemeanour, or breach of the peace,
or to instigate or abany such breach.

The two men, who gave the names of White and
Williams,were taken before a magistrate on the 11th
and remanded until the 18th by a warrant, which
stated the charge against them to be, not for sus-
picion of felony, on which they were arrested, but
"for felony," and omitted to specify what felony or
other offence they were charged with. They were
brought up again on tho 18th, when no evidence
whatever was given upon the charge on which they
were alleged to have been arrested, but an inspector
of detectives from London, who stated he had a
warrant against Kelly for treasonable practices
alleged to have been committed in Ireland, and a
constable from Ireland, who was stated to have a
similar warrant against Deasey, appeared, and on
their application, without the production of either
of the warrants, which, in fact, were not then backed
as the statute reluired, the prisoners were again re-
manded for a week.

No warrant for such second remand was pro.
duced upon the trial, but it was stated that a war-
rant had been signed, a copy of that signed on the
11th inst., and had been destroyed by the police
after the escape of the prisoners.
Kelly and Deasey were then placed in the prison
van for the purpose of being taken to prison ; and
on the way the van was attacked, the prisoners
rescued, and Brett killed.
The two questions were, first, whether or not
Kelly and Deasy were in legal custody ; and, second,
if they were not in legal custody, whether the crime
of killing Brett, in the act of rescuing them,
amounted to murder or manslaughter.
As to the first point it would seem (first) that the
magistrate bad no jurisdiction to commit for felony,
no charge of felony having been made ; and (second)
that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain
the charge of treasonable practices committed in Ire-
land, or to remand the prisoners upon such a charge.
By the 11 and 12 Vict., c. 42, a. '22, justices are em-
powered to take the examination of witnesses against
persons who are brought before them charged with
an offence alleged to have been committed in any
county or placs3 within England or Wales wherein
they have not jurisdiction. By sect. 2of the same
act they are empowered to issue their warrant to
apprehend any one within their jurisdiction charged
with having committed any crime or offence on the
high seas, or in any creek, harbour, &c., or any
" crimes or offences committed on lands beyond the
seas for which an indictment may legally be pre-
ferred in any place within England or Wales." By
sect. 11, where an English warrant is backed in
England, the offender when apprehended may be
taken before' the justice who issues the warrant, or
if so directed by the justice backing the warrant,
before such last mentioned justice or any other jus-
tice of the same county or place ; but by sect. 12,
when an Irish warrant is backed in England, the
offender must be taken before the justice who
granted the warrant, and there is no power to take
him before the magistrate who has backed it. It
would seem therefore that in this case the proper
course would have been, in the case of Deasy at
least, for the magistrate to haye backed the Irish
warrant, and for the prisoner to have been taken,
under the authority of the warrant so backed, to
Ireland, and that the magistrate had no jurisdiction
to examine any witnesses against Deasey, or to
remand him upon the charge of felony.
Thirdly. It is laid down in Coke's Second Insti-
tute, p. 591, when speaking of prison-breaking, that
a mittimus must " contain the cause, but not so cer-
tainly as an inditement ought, and yet with such
convenient certainty as it may appeare judicially
that the offence (prison-breaking) tale judicum re-
quirit' as pro alta proditione,' viz., 'in personam
domini regis,' &c., or pro felonia,' viz., pro morte
talis,' &c.," and he lays it down that a " mitiimus
pro felonia " generally is bad. So again,. Hale
(P. C., vol. 2, p. 122) says that a mittimus
" must contain the certainty of the cause,
and therefore if it be for felony, it ought not to
be generally pro felonia, but it rust contain the
especial nature, of the felony briefly, as for felony
for the death of J. S., or for burglary in breaking
the house of J. S., &c., and the reason is because
it may appear to the judges of the King's
Bench upon an habeas corpus whether it be felony
or not." Hale, however, adds that he does not
think the absence of such particularity would make
the warrant void. It is worthy of notice that in
the forms of remand given by Chitty in his Crimi-
nal Law, vol. 4, pp. 33, 116, and in the form given
in the 11 and 12 Vict., c. 42 (Q. 1) the felony is
specially described.
The second point, which appears to be of the
greater importance, looking at the actual direction
to the jury, and to the fact that they were not asked
to find the existence, contents, or form of the war-
rant, is whether, assuming the detention of one or
both of the prisoners to have been illegal, the kill-
ing of Brett amounted to murder.

The first case on the subject is that of Sir H.
Ferrers (Cro. Car., 371), who was arrested for
debt, and thereupon Nightingale, his servant, in
seeking to rescue him, as was pretended, killed the
bailiff : " But because the warrant to arrest him
was by the name of Henry Ferrers, Knight, and ho
never was a knight, it was held by all the court
that it was a variance in an essential part of the
mine, and they bad no authority by that warrant
to arrest Sir Hcnery Ferrets, Baronet ; so it is an
warrant, and the killing of an officer in execut-
b!g that warrant cannot be murder." This case is
also reported by Sir W. Jones (p. 346), where it is
said to have been held not to be murder either in
the servant or in the prisoner, because the warrant
was not good.

The next case is that of Hopkin Hugget, which
was tried in 1866, and is best reported in J.
Kelyng (p. 59). In that case nugget and three
others pursued three constables who had impressed
a man, and demanded to see their warrant. The
constables showed a paper, which the prisoners said
was no warrant, and thereupon they drew their
swords, and llugget killed one of the constables.
Of the twelve judges eight delivered their opinion
That this was no murder, but only manslaughter,
and they said that if a man unduly arrested or
restrained Of his liberty by three men, although he,

be quiet himself, and do not endeavour any rescue,
yet this is a provocation to all other men of Eng-
land, not only his friends, but strangers also, for
common humanity's sake, as my Lord Bridgman said,
to endeavour his rescue ; and if in such endeavour
of rescue they kill any one, this is no murder, but
only manslaughter. The four other judges held it
murder, and thought the case in question to be much
the stronger because the party himself who was im-
pressed was quiet and made no resistance, and they
who meddled were no friends of his or acquaint-
ances, but mere strangers, and did not so much as
desire them which had him in custody to la him
go. Although all the judges of the King's Bench
thought it murder, they conformed to the opinion
of the other eight, and gave judgment of imprison-
ment for 11 months.

In Beg. v Mawgri,ige, which was tried in 1707
(J. Kelyug, 136), the Chief Justice alluded to
Ilugget's case as having settled the law upon the
point.

In Tooley's case (2 Lord Raymond, 1296) which
was tried in 1710, Ann Dakin was in the custody
of one Bray, when the prisoners, who were strangers
to Dakin, assaulted Bray, but withdrew. They
afterwards assaulted Bray again, after the woman
had been locked up, and killed one Dent, whom
Bray had called to his assistance. One of the pri-
soners gave the stroke, the two others were aiding
and abetting. Seven of the 12 judges held this to
be manslaughter, and five held it to be murder, one
of the five thinking that the constable had autho-
rity. Those judges who held the offence to be man-
slaughtei only, so held on the opinion that the pri-
soners had sufficient provocation, for if, they say,
one be imprisoned upon an unlawful authority it is
a sufficient provocation to all people out of com-
passion, much more where it is done under a colour
of justice, and where the liberty of the subject is
invaded, it is a provocation to all the subjects of
England.
In R. v. Adey (1 Leach, 206), which was tried
in 1779, a somewhat similar point arose, and the
presiding judge, on the authority of Tooley's case,
reserved the point for the consideration of the 12
judges. The prisoner escaped in the riots of 1780,
and no judgment was given, but Leach says that it
was understood the judges held it to be man-
slaughter only.

Again, in R. v. Osmer (5 East, 304), argued in
1804, Lord Ellenborough, C.J., says, that "if a
man without authority attempt to arrest another
illegally, it is a breach of the peace, and any other
person may lawfully interfere to prevent it, doing
no more than is necessary for that purpose."
In Reg. v. Phelps (Car. and 111., 180), tried in
1841, a policeman attempted to apprehend a man on
suspicion of having stolen growing potatoes. He
resisted, and some persons came to his aid, and
killed one Southwood, whom the policeman bad
called to his assistance. Upon proof of these facts,
Coltman, J., directed the jury that, as the police-
man had no right to apprehend the man, the offence
of those who killed Southwood was manslaughter
only, and not murder. .

These appear to be the cases bearing most closely
on the subject, but turning to the authority of text
writers and the dicta of judges, we find Hawkins,
in his Pleas of the Crown (Book 1., c. 31, s. 60),
stating the law as it was laid down in Hugget's
and Tooley's cases, and adding that " since in the
event it appears that the persons slain were tres-
passers, covering their violence with a show of jus-
tice, he who kills them is indulged by the law, which
in these cases judges by the event, which those who
engage in such unlawful actions must abide at their
peril."

Hale (P. C., vol. i., p. 465) also cite 3 Hugget's
case, and apparently with approval.

On the other hand, Foster, J., in his " Discourse
upon Crown Law' (p. 312), while he appears to
approve of the law as laid down in Hugget's case,
combats the doctrine of the majority of the judges
in Tooky's case, and appears to doubt the propriety
of that decision, partly upon general principles, and
partly because the second assault on the constable
seemed to him rather to have been grounded upon
resentment or a principle of revenge for what had
before passed than upon any hope or endeavour to
assist the woman.

It is these observations of Foster, J., which Alder-
son, 8., appears to have had i❑ his mind when he is
reported to have said in B. v. Warner (I. Moo, C C.
385), that • Tooley's case had been overruled.
Tooley's case had in fact no bearing upon Warner's
case, in which no attempt was made to arrest the
prisoners at all, and Alderson, 8., does not refer to
any authority for his statement. A similar remark
was made by Pollock, C. 8., in Reg. v. Davis
(Leigh and Cave, C C. 71), but there again no au-
thority is given.
East, in his " Pleas of the Crown" (vol. i, p.
325), states the question with the arguments on
either side, without showing much leaning either
way, and so does Russell (Criminal Law, vol. i, p.
632), although his editor, Mr. Greaves, from his
note (p. 848 of the 4th edit.) appears to have been
convinced by the arguments adduced by Foster.
It would thus seem that the doctrine laid down by
the majority of the judges in the cases of Ferrers,
Hugget, and Tooley has been acted upon, not only
in those cases, but also in R. v. Adey and Reg. v.
Phelps, and recognised in Reg. v. Mawgridge and
R. v. Osmer, and by Hawkins and Hale.
The opposite doctrine is supported by the autho-
rity of a minority of the judges in Hugget and
Tooley's cases, and by Foster, J., and receives some
sort of sanction from the observations of Alderson,
8., and Pollock, C. 8., if they can be considered to
display a sufficiently accurate knowledge of the sub-
ject to entitle them to any sleight. This view of the
law, however, has never once been acted upon, and
it follows that if the prisoners convicted at Man-
chester be executed without any discussion of the
law, they will be put to death in opposition to the
decided cases on the subject, upon the authority
solely of extra-judicial arguments and dicta.
In some of these arguments a distinction has been
taken between the interference of a friend or a re-
lative and that of a mere stranger ; but this distinc-
tion does not appear to rest upon any authority.
Hawkins, in his " Pleas of the Crown" (Bk. i., c.
31, ss. 56 and 57), say; that " if a man's ser-
vant, or friend, or even a stranger, coming sud-
denly and seeing him fighting with another, side
with him and kill the other, or seeing his sword
broken send him another, wherewith he kills the
other, he is guilty of manslaughter only. Yet in
this very case, if the person killed were a bailiff or
other officer of justice, resisted by the master, &c.,
in the due execution of his duty, such friend or ser-
vant, &c., are guilty of murder whether they knew
that the person slain were an officer or not."
For these and other reasons we are of opinion
that the points raised in this case are of such a grave
and serious character as to demand further discus-
sion and consideration, and that they ought only to
be decided after full and deliberate argument be-
fore the Court of Criminal Appeal.
W. DIGBY SEYMOUR, Q.C.
MICHAEL O'BRIEN, S.L.
ERNEST JONES.
JAMES COTTINGHAM.
LEWIS W. CAVE.

REPLY OF MR. JUSTICE BLACKBURN.

Nov. 20, 1867.

Dear Mr. Seymour,—Mr. Justice Mellor and I
have received and carefully perused the paper signed
by you, my brother O'Brien, an-3 Mr. Cave.
It contains nothing that is new to us, but it puts
all the authorities in the light most favourable for
your clients, and I need not say that it is a great
Eatisfaction to us to think that nothing has been
overlooked which could bear on so grave a question.
The Legislature have, by the 11 and 12 Vic. c.
78, cast upon the presiding judges the very disagree-
able and invidious duty of determining whether their
own view of the law at the trial is or is not so ques-
tionable as to justify an appeal. If they refuse to
reserve any point made, it is still open to the pri-
soners to appeal to the equitAble consideration of
the Sovereign, but no appeal lies to any court of
law.

In the present case my brother Mellor and I con-
sidered the points raised before us on the trial, and
entertained no doubt that the direction which we
then gave to the jury was strictly according to law
We therefore reserved no question f,r the Court of
Appeal at the time, but simply post oued our trial

determination on the subject until we had the means
of referring to the authorities and considering the
case more at leisure. We have now considered the
authorities and have consulted the other judges, not
with the view of dividing our responsibility nor in
order to obtain a judicial opinion from them which
they could not give on a point not regularly before
them ; but because, in a case so serious, we were
very anxious to have the best advice and assistance
that we could obtain for our guidance. I need not
say that if the result of such consultation and re-
search had been to lead to the conclusion that there
was doubt enough to justify a further appeal, it
would have relieved us from a most painful respon-
sibility. I regret to say that the result has been to
satisfy us that the law is too clear to justify us in
reserving any point for the consideration of the
Court of Criminal Appeal.
Entertaining that opinion, we have officially in-
formed the Secretary for the Home Department
that there will be no further appeal to a court of
law, and that it is now for her Majesty's Govern-
ment alone to determine what shall be done with
the convicts.

This decision of ours is final ; but, as a satisfac-
tion to you and the other counsel for the prisoners,
I will briefly state the reasons which have induced
us to think the law too clear for argument.
When a constable, or other person properlyautho-
rised, acts in execution of his duty, the low casts a
peculiar protection around him, and consequently,
if he is killed in the execution of his duty, it is, in
general murder, even though there be such circum-
stances of hot blood and want of premeditation as
would in any ordinary case reduce the crime to
manslaughter. But when the warrant under which
the officer acting is not sufficient to justify him in
arresting or detaining prisoners, or there is no
warrant at all, he is entitled to this peculiar protec-
tion, and consequently the crime may be reduced to
manslaughter when the offence is committed on the
sudden, and is attended by circumstances affording
reasonable provocation.
The cases which you have cited are authorities
that where the affray is sudden and unpremeditated,
when, as Lord Holt says in R. v. Tooley (2 Ld.
Raymond, 1300), " it is acting without any prece-
dent malice or apparent design of doing hurt," the
mere fact that the arrest was not warranted may be
sufficient provocation.
But in every one of those cases the affray was
s•idden and unpremeditated.
In the present case the form of warrant adopted
may be open to objection, and probably might ou
application to the court for a writ of habeas have
entitled the prisoners to be discharged from cus-
tody, but we entirely agree with the opinion of
Lord Hale (2, Pleas of the Crown), that though
defective in form the gaoler or officer is bound to
obey a warrant in this general form, and conse-
quently is protected by it. This is a point which,
had the affray been sudden and unpremeditated, we
probably should have thought it right to reserve.
In the present case, however, it was clearly proved
that there was on the part of the convicts a delibe-
rate, prearranged conspiracy to attack the police
with firearms, and shoot them if necessary for the
purpose of rescuing the two prisoners in their cus-
tody, and that they were well aware that the police
were acting in obedience to the commands of a
justice of the peace, who had full power to remand
the prisoners to gaol if he made a proper warrant
for the purpose. It was further manifest that they
attempted the rescue in perfect ignorance of any
defect in the warrant, or illegality in the custody,
that the courts of law were open to an application
for their release from custody. We think it would
be monstrous to suppose that under such circum-
stances, even if the justice did make an informal
warrant, it could possibly justify the slaughter of
an officer in charge of the prisoners, or reduce such
slaughter to the crime of manslaughter.
To cast any doubt on this subject would, we think,
be productive of the most serious mischief, by dis-
couraging the police in the performance of their
duties, and by encouraging the lawless in a disre-
gard of the authority of the law.

We feel bound under these circumstances to de-
cline to take a course which might lead to the belief
that we considered the matter as open to doubt.
Comx BLACKBURN.

The preparations for the execution of the four
convicts at the New Bailey, on Saturday, are being
actively pushed forward. Yesterday workmen
commenced the erection of barriers in New Bailey-
street; and this morning they will take down a
portion of the prison wall at the spot where the
scaffold will be erected. The streets branching from
New Bailey-street, and the entrances from Chapel-
street and over Albert Bridge, will be closed by
barricades. After noon to-day no vehicles will be
permitted to pass along New Bailey-street until after
the execution. The Mayor of Salford issued a no-
tice last night, requesting the well-disposed and
respectable inhabitants of the borough to stay
away from the scene of the execution on Saturday,
so that the danger arising from the pressure of
large crowds may be diminished as much as pos-
sible. In fact, by the modern arrangements of an
execution, so little is to be seen, that those who
usually congregate about such horrors have scarcely
anything to attract them.

The enrolment of special constables has proceeded
in the most satisfactory manner. The Mayor was
engaged last night swearing in numbers of men ;
and the response to the call of the authorities has
been so general that it has not been found necessary
to issue any summonses for special constables. It
is expected that by this evening 2,000 will have
been sworn in, and the entire force will be on duty
from four o'clock on Friday afternoon until ten
o'clock on Saturday morning.
We are informed that the convicts, having clung
to hope until lately, are now fully convinced that
the sentence will be carried out, and their demeanour
shows the most complete resignation. They have
attended most assiduously, and with the utmost
fervour, to the ministrations of the Roman Catholic
clergymen who have attended upon them every day.
Allen still continues to protest that he did not shoot
Brett. O'Brien (alias Gould) has not shown the
least desire to do anything that might tend to avert
his fate, and the same observation applies to Larkin.
The convict Condon (alias Shore), who has borne
a captain's commission in the American army, is a
native of the United States. He is known to have
been connected with the Fenian organisation both
in America and this country, and satisfactory proof
has been obtained that he took steps to provide
legal assistance for Kelly and Deasey whilst they
were lying in the City Gaol. The convict solicited,
some time ago, the assistance of the American Mi-
nister to this country, and wished him to interfere
on the ground that he (Condon) was an American
citizen. As in the case of O'Brien, Mr. Adams de-
clined to interfere. Since sentence was passed
upon him Condon has repeated his application
that Mr. Adams would interfere with the British
Government on his behalf ; and that Mr. Lord, the
United States Consul in this city, has received a
communication from Mr. Adams, to the effect that
as Condon has broken the laws of this country, he
(Mr. Adams) cannot interfere in his behalf.

The Rev. Mr. Gadd will remain with the convicts
during the whole of Friday night. On every alter-
nate morning since their conviction the condemned
men have partaken of the CGmmunion. It has been
arranged that they shall again partake of it imme-
diately before the execution. Allen had a parting
interview yesterday with an uncle and three
cousins.

Many persons were surprised that Thaddeus
Stevens closed his couventation with the German,
through whose means he lately addressed his fellow-
citizens, without alluding to his views :on the Na-
tional Debt. It appears that he reserved this for a
separate address, as a telegram from New York,
dated Nov. 9, informs us he has written a letter ad-
vocating the payment of the 5-20 bonds in currency.
Whether Thaddeus Stevens is a good guide on
questions connected with Reconstruction remains
to be proved ; but on questions of political economy
and finance he is as little to be followed as any man
in the Union. his influence, impaired by recent
events, will not be strengthened by the course
he is pursuing, and if the Republican party has ma-
terially lost ground, it is perhaps most due to
Thaddeus Stevens.

Metropolitan Board of Works.

A special meeting of the Metropolitan Board of
Works was held yesterday at the office in Spring-
gardens, Sir John Tbwaites in the chair.

THE CHARGES AGAINST MR. DOULTON, H.P.

The Court was specially convened yesterday for
the purpose of investigating the charges which had
been made by Mr. Furness, one of the contractors
for the execution of the Thames Embankment
works, contained in the evidence he gave before the
Registrar in Bankruptcy, in reference to Mr.
Doulton, M.P., one of the members of this Board,
and which, if true, were of a very serious charac-
ter. The Board room was fully occupied by mem-
bers, and the space devoted to strangers was com-
pletely filled by vestrymen and constituents of the
hon. member for Lambeth.

At 12 o'clock precisely Sir JOHN THWAITES took
the chair, and opened the business by stating that
he saw the hon. member for Lambeth in his place,
and a copy of the evidence given by Mr. Furness
in the proceedings in bankruptcy had been sent to
each member, and the same had no doubt been re-
ceived by the hon. member himself. The hon. mem-
ber had expressed a desire to make a statement,
and the special Board had been called that day to
give him an opportunity of doing so. Before, how-
ever, the hon. member began, he wished to call the
attention of the members of the Board to page 21 of
the printed evidence, in which reference was made
to some transactions connected with the Odessa con-
tract and Mr. Bazalgette, their chief engineer.
There was a great disturbance amongst the vestries
at that time on account of Mr. Ridley's tender for
the Thames Embankment works being lower than
the one that was accepted. Mr. Furness, in the
evidence he had given, had stated that he had re-
ceived a letter from him (the chairman), making
some arrangements as to money being received as
expenses by Mr. Bazalgette in reference to the Odessa
contract, but that he was not to receive any com-
mission. Now he (Sir J. Thwaites) did not write
any such letter, and on looking over Mr. Furness's
evidence he was astonished to find that stated, as
he had never written him any letter on the subject
in conjunction with Mr. Bazalgette or otherwise.
Upon that he directed his secretary to write to Mr.
Furness, and he returned him a reply that he had
not done so, and that Mr. Bazalgette had only written
a letter declining any participation of the commis-
sion out of the Odessa contract. If the hon. mem-
ber for Lambeth was then desirous of making any
statement, they would be very glad to hear it.

Mr. DOULTON, M.P., said--The observations
which I may feel called upon to make to-day will
be very brief, but I trust will be very intelligible.
In the first place, I desire to assure the Board that
my absence on Friday last arose from no indisposi-
tion on my part to give you an explanation, or
from any inability to answer satisfactorily all the
statements which have been made. It was simply
a question of possibility in regard to other matters
in which I am engaged, or I should have been able
then to giye you that explanation which I shall
give you this day. That appears to me to be
not only the legitimate but the only course open
to me to take. On the 9th of October I first
heard of even the slightest whisperings against my
character in relation to this matter, and what I heard
was of the vaguest description; and on the same day
I wrote to the solicitors who had been connected
with the examination, asking to give me a copy of
the evidence givea by Mr. Furness. In the next
place, I asked that an opportunity should be afforded
to me to give my answer in the same place and be-
fore the same tribunal where the charges had been
made. In consequence, however, of the absence
from town of the principal of the firm, I did not re-
ceive a reply to my communication until the Ist of
the present month. I was then informed that there
was no objection to my having a copy of the evi-
dence, but they saw no means of giving me the op-
portunity of making my statement before the Court
of Bankruptcy. This matter had not then come be-
fore the Board at all. Now, what could I do ? I
could only wait until I could obtain the evidence in
which the statements were made, and I obtained
that evidence, in common with the other members
of the Board, only on Tuesday week last. Until
that day I had not seen any evidence, and only
statements in the vaguest form had been made. On
that day I personally saw the chairman of the Board
(Sir J. Thwaites), and told him that, as it would be
impossible for me to be present on Friday last, I
wished the matter to be referred to a committee to
be investigated—not to a committee of seven or nine
members, but to a committee of the whole Board,
which was the usual course taken in such matters.
Having been investigated by the committee, the re-
port could have been presented and the whole subject
publicly gone into. The Board, on Friday, thought
differently, and did not adopt the course that I sug-
gested. I do not complain that they did not, but
what I do complain of is that certain members of the
Board, although they did tot endorse the statements
which had been made, by the inference that could be
drawn from their observations they assumed their
truth. It was very foolish on my part that I should
have made the suggestion that the subject be referred
to a committee, for in this Board as elsewhere there
is a class of persons who, if they can obtain a bit of
scandal, roll it on their tongues like a sweet morsel,
and take every opportunity of which they can avail
themselves to damage my public character, acting,
if you throw enough
should like to know
n dirt, doubt,some oi
is
stuhree ptroi nscti
ipelke t h alt ,
what the charge.is that is made against me, because
there is a difference between that made here and that
made out of doors. Out of doors the general im-
pression is that 1, as a member of this Board, used
my influence to obtain a contract for a certain con-
tractor, and by influence so obtained it, for which I
received a sum of money. The inference drawn from
the evidence is that I received a sum of money, as
I induced two gentlemen to become sureties, and
thus enabled Mr. Furness to obtain the contract ;
that the two gentlemen who undertook the respon-
sibility and risk of becoming sureties were paid, and
that I received a part of the money. To the infer-
ence that can fairly be drawn from that evidence
allow me to say I give a firm, unhesitating, and un-
equivocal denial. Certain sums were to be paid to
the gentlemen who were to become sureties, and the
inference was that I received a portion of that sum
as a member of the Board. As a proof of what I
have stated, I sought out with some difficulty a gen-
tleman thoroughly conversant with the matter, for
it is four years since the transaction took place, and
I have received a communication from him which is
marked " private and confidential," but there are
portions of that letter, with a certain reserve, that I
will read, and I will place it in the hands of the chair-
man or of a committee,and it will show that the charges
against me are unfounded. (Some portions of the let-
ter were then read, which stated that Mr. Doulton had
never received anycash, bill, or other consideration in
reference to this matter.) I have not received the
writer's permission to make the whole letter public,
but I will place it in the hands of the com-
mittee. What I did was this—to introduce the
contractor to these two gentlemen, he having paid
on a previous contract £20,000 to the sureties. The
gentlemen I introduced became his sureties for half
that amount, but not one penny of that sum ever
came into my possession. If there ever was an
absurd idea enter the mind of man, it was the ab-
surdity of supposing that any contract could be ob-
tained from the Board by the influence of a single
member of it. I do not think it po sible that any
contractor can be found who would pay for the
imaginary influence which I am supposed to possess
in reference to this matter. The whole history of
the Board gives the lie to such an assertion.
When we have large and small matters to deal with
we refer them to others and take their opinion, which
is a legitimate influence we possess to obtain what
we require. We use our legitimate influence when
we have five or six candidates for an appointment,
and when we do not know them personally, and we
naturally bend to the opinion of those who have some
knowledge of their ability and services. In this
very matter, as to the acceptance of Mr. Furness's
contract, when it was before the committee and
before the Board I was not in favour of it, and when
there was a division 1 recorded my vote against Mr.
Furness's contract being received. You may take

that for what it is worth, but it is a fact. After
the debate of Friday I should have been content
that the Board should have investigated the matter,
and I should have also been content with its report.
Probably you may question my discretion, but tell-
ing the history of the case from end to end I do not
believe that one member of the Board will endorse
the opinion that could be drawn from the inference
of the observations of last Friday that the charges
were true. When I came to town and saw the debate
of Friday, it is not possible for me to leave off where I
intended. This is not the first time charges have been
made against my public character here and else-
where, owing to my having the good fortune to
know something of the contractors, and on that
ground charges utterly indefensible have been made
against me, and I challenge any member of the
Board to prove them. That took place four years
ago, when an attempt was made to injure my poli-
tical character, and, although I have called upon my
political opponent to justify his charges, they have
utterly failed. Two yea►s afterward the same
charges were made, with the same person at the
head, but supplemented by a political and parochial
opponent who sits beside me (Mr. Richardson) ; who
asserted his own purity and threw his mantle round
the dignity of the board. There were offshoots from
the same charges, and by the same men, but I tell
them now that they have utterly and ignominiously
failed to establish the charges they have made. It
might be said the Board did not make these charges,
and it is true that you did not make them as a board ;
but what I complain of is that only with the simple
question before you, without having even been dis-
cussed by a committee, some of you have asserted by
implication the truth of the statements that were
made. And I would ask why should there be this
gratuitous anxiety to discuss this question before I
had an opportunity of offering any explanation, or
defending my own dignity and honour. If the board
is attacked it naturally looks to one man to protect
its honour; but my hon. friend led the way, and he
was particularly emphatic, in doing so, to reiterate
the charges against me, to assert his own virtue, and
then to throw his own shelter round the dignity of
the board. When I read this gratuitous statement of
the hon, member, in which he proclaimed his own
virtue at the corner of every street, I said simply " I
do not believe it." Then there is another gentleman
opposite (Mr. Savage) who could put into the smallest
number of syllables the most objectionable things,
who said it was very awkward ; and the inference to
be derived from what he said was that I wasnot in my
place because 1 was not prepared to answer the
charges which had been made. Then there was an-
other gentleman who was good enough to say that I
had risen to my present position by my talents. I am
obliged to him for the compliment, but I fear I am
not able to return it. I think it one of the most un-
just and unmanly statements ever made. It was a
species of parochial Fenianism, and a stabbing in
the back which could only originate in the parish of
Marylebone. It was only natural, as the debate
had been begun by the hon. member for Greenwich,
he should throw his sheltering arm and the dignity
of the board over the hon. member for Paddington
(Mr. Roche). The hon. member for Padding-
ton had said if the board was to be defended it
should be done publicly, and he had appealed to
Cs✓;ar. To Caesar he should go, for within a few
days I have received a communication involving fresh
charges in reference to the transactions of this
board. I have received a letter from a contractor
to this board, in which it is stated that Mr. Roche,
the member for Paddington, spoke to him at Spring
Gardens, and promised to support him in the con-
tract, if he would only have the granite he required
from the Lundy Granite Company, and my name
was mentioned by Mr. Roche as referee without my
consent or knowledge, and he said that Mr. Ridley
had done the same thing, and showed him a paper
that he held in his hand ; and this was the guardian
angel of the board. You hav got;the evidence be-
fore you and attach great value to it ; but it has not
been corrected by the person who gave it. It was
given in his rough and ready style, but, as the chair-
man has already shown you, it was untrue in some
very important particulars. Well, after Mr. Fur-
ness's evidence about me, he was anxious to make
a full and complete sweep of all he knew, and wanted
to give evidence about the granite, and in reference
to which Mr. Roche's name was mentioned more
than once, but he was stopped short and told that
was not the object of the inquiry. No ; the object
sought bad been obtained, and no evidence was to
be taken against any other member of the board
except on the one question in which I had been en-
gaged. I emphatically deny the evidence that has
been given ; I deny all the statements that have
been made, and I say that they are without a sha-
dow of foundation. The hon. member sat down
amid some cheering.
Mr. H. L. TAYLOR thought the truth would be
best elicited by referring the whole matter to a
committee, and moved " That the subject be re-
ferred to a committee of the whole Board, and that
they do report as early as possible upon it."

Mr. SHAW condemned the system of members of
the Board being mixed up with contractors, and
with regard to the sureties provided by Mr. Doulton
they were not seen by Mr. Furness until they were
introduced to him by a member of the Board.
Mr. RICHARDSON urged that the public would
never be satisfied with a private inquiry after the
charges which had been made against Mr. Doulton,
and he should hold up his hand against this matter
being sent to any committee unless it was an open
one.

Mr. Roc LIE indignantly denied that lie had any
personal interest in the contract referred to, or in
the Lundy Granite Company, he having not a single
share in it, and altogether ceased to have any con-
nection with it for some time past. He denied ever
having produced such a contract as had been de-
scribed, or did he ever see such a document. In his
professional capacity he had to draw up a contract
from instructions he received from the company for
a supply of granite, but for that he ba I received no
accommodation bills, or any remuneration whatever
to the extent of a single sixpence. He acted for the
company, and in doing so was very careful. He
prepared the legal document and got it signed, and
the name of Mr. Doulton was ,inserted at the re-
quest of Mr. Furness, who stated that he was his
closest and most sincere friend. What he did was
strictly within his duty as a member of the Board
and as a representative of the company. He would
ask any gentleman to read the document before
them, and he would see that Mr. Furness was not in
a position at the time to take any contract, for he
was then little better than insolvent, and yet he bad
the audacity to say that he had been brought to his
present position through the conduct of the mem-
bers of the Board. The letter he had written
might have been written at the dictation of the
gentleman who produced it, but he did not say
that was the case. At a►ny rate, Mr. Doulton threw
dirt on some one else, so that he might come clean
himself out of this transaction. He (Mr. Roche)
had asked for publicity before—he asked for it
still he had never been a party to any of these
transactions, and had never received any remunera-
tion for being so.
Mr. THOMPSON was in favour of a public inquiry,
for it was impossible that the matter could rest
where it was, and he hoped the hon. member for
Lambeth would prove correct in the statements he
had made.

Mr. FREE3IAN believed that they would never be
able to prosecute a thorough investigation unless
through the means of a coumittee—not a secret
one, but one of the whole Board.
Mr. Bolus urged that as the inquiry had begun
it should be continued and concluded in public.
Mr. HALL should vote for sending it to a com-
mittee, and the same view was taken by Dr. Evans,
who said that if the inquiry was in open Board they
would be unable to obtain the necessary evidence,
they having no power to compel the attendance of
witnesses.

After some further discussion the motion was
carried for referring the subject to a committee,
whereupon a motion was made that such committee
should be an open one to the press, which was
put and negatived by a majority of 18 to 13.
It was agreed that a shorthand writer should be
engaged to take down the evidence given in the
committee.
The Board then adjourned.