The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-16 00:00:00

WILLS.

The will and six codicils of Abel Smith, Esq.,
banker, of Lombard-street, and of Woodhall, Herts.,
was proved in the principal registry of the Court of
Probate, London, on the 9th of April, by two of the
executors—namely, Abel Smith and Robert Smith,
Esqrs., the sons ; power reserved to Samuel George
Smith and Henry Smith, Esqrs., the brothers. The
personalty was sworn under £400,000. The will
is dated the 28th of June, 1848, and the sixth and

last codicil on the 14th of, February, 1859. Mr.
Smith died on the 23d of the same month. The
documents are of considerable length. Mr. Smith
has bequeathed to his wife her jewellery and other
ornaments absolutely ; and the diamonds which
were his mother's he wishes to remain in the family
with the estates. He leaves her the furniture, linen,
books, china, and plate that she may select to the
amount of £l,OOO,- with an immediate legacy of
£l,OOO, £2,000 a year, and residence, with carriage
and horses. He has bequeathed to each son a
legacy of £20,000. The entailed Hertfordshire
estates descend to the eldest son, who has be-
queathed to him all the other estates of his father
in that county, and the estates in London and Mid-
dlesex. Mr. Smith bequeaths to his son Robert his
estates in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, and
leaves to him all his share aed interest in the bank-
ing establishments. He has bequeathed to his
son Philip his estates in Buckinghamshire ; and to
his son Alfred his estates in the counties of Derby,
Stafford, and Leicester, with a sum of £lO,OOO.
To his daughter Caroline, wife of Robert Han-
bury, jun., Esq., M.P., and to his other daughters,
each £30,000, but to his daughter Elizabeth
Frances £15,000 ; to each of his clerks a legacy
of £10; a legacy to each of his household, includ-
ing his steward and the governess; and to each
servant, male and female, gardeners, coachmen,
and farming labourers, according to length of ser-
vice. To the Hertfordshire Infirmary he leaves
£lOO. The residue he leaves to his eldest son.
The will of William Pritchard, Esq., of Doctors'
_ _

commons, and formerly of 22, Kensington-park-
gardens, but late of No. 5, The Cedars, Putney,
High Bailiff of Southwark, was proved in the prin-
cipal registry in London, on the sth of April, by
Ruth Ann Pritchard, widow, the relict and sole
executrix. The personal property is sworn under
£7,000. The will is dated the sth August, 1856,
and is in the testator's handwriting, commencing
with an allusion to a deed of covenant entered into
with his son and partner, William Tarn Pritchard,
in the year 1848. He bequeaths two policies on
his life in the Mutual and one in the Law Life
Assurance Societies to trustees in trust to invest
the proceeds and bonuses on good security, and
the dividends or interest therefrom to be applied
by his executrix for the benefit and support of
herself and younger children; andupon her decease
one moiety of such principal sum so invested to be
given to his daughter Ellen, the vife of the Rev.
W. Calvert, and the other moiety to his daughter
Emily Sarah Pritchard, for their sole and separate
use ; and, on their dying without children, their
share to be divided equally among those of his ten
children surviving or their issue. The residue of
his estate, real and personal, he leaves to his wife,
at her discretion, for the maintenance and support
of herself and such of her children as may require

The will of Francis Smedley, Esq., of Grove
Lodge, Regent's-park, High Bailiff of Westminster,
was proved in the principal registry of London on
the 24th of March, by Francis Sarah Smedley,
widow, the relict, and Francis Edward Smedley,
Esq., the son, the personalty sworn under £120,000.
He has bequeathed his residence, with the furni-
ture, plate, books, china, linen, carriages, horses,
stabling, &c., to his wife for life, with £1,500 a year
a legacy of £lO,OOO, and £3OO for immediate use.
Leaves his niece, Menella Bute Smedley, £250
a year ; his niece, Mrs. Hart, £l5O a year ; his
nephew, Edward Hume Smedley, £l5O a year ;
and legacies to his other nephews and nieces, and
to his two sisters and his sister-in-law and a god-
son. The real estate and residue of his personal
estate he leaves to his son, Francis Edward Smed-
ley.--Illustrated London fews.

SWINDLING IN PARIS.

The Tribunal of Correctional Police on Thursday
tried the Vicomte de Beaumont-Vassy, who is of
high family, and was formerly prefect of the de-
partment of the Aisne, on the charge of swindling.
On account of the social position of the defendant,
the case excited great interest, but the facts of it
were very few, being simply that he had obtained
money and shares from a saltpetre company on
pretext of bribing some public functionaries to
cause the War Department to purchase or use a
patent for extracting pure saltpetre without re-
fining it, which, it was alleged, possesses numerous
advantages over, and is cheaper than, the system
at present employed ; and had appropriated the
money and' shares to his own use. One Sebille,
Belgian (who is now in custody on a charge of
forgery), who was interested in the patent, entered,
it appeared, into communication with Beaumont-
Vassy for the purpose of getting the patent if
possible accepted by the War Department, and
after a while the latter wrote this letter to Se-
bille :—" My dear friend,—lt is indispensable that
you should write me a letter. On this subject I
think it useful to ask you, in the probable case in
which it may appear to me necessary to bribe some
functionaries, whether subaltern or other, in order
that they may present the affair in a favourable
light to their superiors, or promote its success—
whether your company will authorise me to dispose
of a small sum, the amount of which might be fixed
in advance, and that amount to be in no case ex-
ceeded, for it may be a pure loss, and after all the
affair, instead of succeeding, as I hope it will, may
fail. Would a maximum of from 3,000 f. to 4,000 f.,
or simply of 3,000 f., appear too much ? Bear in
mind that it is possible the money may not be
needed, or that a few hundred francs may suffice; but
we must provide for everything, and this sort of
thing is, it appears, very piquant—as is also the
giving of good dinners to the high functionaries of
the Ministry." After this letter had been read in
court, " Do you admit that you wrote that letter ?"
asked the President. " Yes, sir, but it was in con-
sequence of conversations I had with Sebille; it was
he who talked of bribery, and I could not do other-
wise." " The letter does not appear to confirm
what you say." " Observe, sir, that I say if it be
necessary,' and I repeat that the letter was written
in consequence of previous conversations." " Whd-
ther it was or not, it speaks of bribery. I will now
have a second letter read." It runs thus :—" 14th
October, 1857. I have just taken the air of the
bureau, and my first impressions are very favour-
able to our enterprise. I fell in with an old sea-wolf,
who not only told me what was to be done, but kindly
offered to do what would be most disagreeable both to
you and me—that is, act on certain personages, sub-
, altern and high-placed, who it appears are indispen-
sable. He fixed a price for himself, and I consented to
it, though it is rather high. Decidedly I was rather
silly, but we learn as we get older. To-marrow
and the day after I shall see all the people neces-
sary to the success of the affair. You will under-
stand that I shall not touch the sensible cord until
I shall have some one to play the instrument. Two
important and influential men of the establishment
appeared to me to take into serious consideration
the developments I gave. Decidedly I have great
hopes, but I see that you are right, and that the
manner of proceeding is that which you indicate to
me. The sea wolf spoke to me of M. M. —, of
whom we conversed. As to that man,' said he
cynically, he is a big tooth to pull out." We have
good tools,' said I with a laugh. (Keep all this to
yourself.) To-morrow I give a good dinner to
two aides de camp. In a word, everything seems
to me to be going on well. Send me as quickly as
possible the 30,000 arguments of which you spoke
yesterday," After the letter had been read,
the President said :—" You wrote that letter ?"
" Yes, sir." " You ask in it for what you
call 30,000 arguments ? " "Sebille had
indicated to me a person whose support might be
necessary, but who had nothing to do with the
Ministry." "'What was his name ?" "I cannot
tell." " Everything should be public here. Did
you receive the 30,000 arguments ?" " I did, but
gave them back, because I believed that things
sometimes took place in the manner indicated by
Sebille, that is to say, that certain liabilities were
necessary. But was mistaken, and lam happy
to say that no one was bribed in the Ministry of
War. I gave small portions of the sum to persons
who are not public functionaries, and restored the
rest." The prisoner then in answer to other ques-
tions, said that he had become chairman of the
Saltpetre Company, and in that capacity had sti-
pulated on having a " commission" of 450,000 fr.;
but he pretended that he had only made that sti-
pulation because, some officers of artillery having
expressed but a poor opinion of the invention, he
had feared that the company might fail, and had
been anxious to be able to indemnify petty capi-
talists who might make investments in it. He also
admitted having received 50 paid up shares of
1,000 f., but denied that, as alleged,they were given
him because he had pretended they were to be
employed in bribery ; they were, he said, a recom-
pense for his services to the company. He was
also questioned about sums of 50,000 f. and
10,000 f. which the company had received as cau-
tion money for places given to men named Delort
and Albert, the latter a hairdresser from Laon, the
chief town of the Aisne ; and he was obliged to
admit that to the former 21,000 f. and to the latter
the whole 10,000 f, were still owing, though the
company had come to nothing. He also confessed
that some other letters containing the expressions,

" I am going to my banker for money, and am
about to begin to distribute it." " I have had to
advance 40,000 f. from my own pocket," and so on
had been written by him, but that such state-
ments were not true. M. Sebille, M. Ansiaux,
M. Ghislain, and M. Lucas (the latter is in custody
on a charge of forgery), and some other persons
gave evidence proving that the prisoner had re-
ceived the 30,000 f. and the fifty I,ooof. shares on
pretext of bribing, but had appropriated them to
his own uses. After hearing pleadings- in support
of the prosecution, in the course of which it was
stated that Beaumcnt-Vassy and Sebille had
endeavoured to make the War Department give
3,500,000 f. for the saltpetre patent, though it
had only cost 500,000 f., and after hearing counsel
for the prisoner, the tribunal condemned him to
two years' imprisonment, 3,000 f. fine, and ten
years' interdiction of civil rights. Sebille, Ansiaux,
and Ghislain, who had been concerned in the salt-
petre patent, prayed the tribunal to condemn.
Beaumont-Vassy to pay the damages, but the tri-
bunal refused. Not a word was said at the trial of
the appearance of an individual, dressed in uniform,
purporting to come from the Minister of War for
the purpose of deceiving the shareholders, as was
rumoured at first.

NAVAL EXPENDITURE.

(From the Times)
The great dockyard mystery is gradually getting
clearer. We begin to see daylight in the matter.
The reports made on the subject have been so
copious and so plain that we can now, at any rate,
tell where and how the money goes, though
whether it ought to go at such a rate is still a
question for consideration. When Lord Clarence
Paget brought the case to a definite issue the other
day by comparing facts' with figures, he averred
that some 25 per cent. of the money voted for the
construction and maintenance of the fleet during
the last ten years had vanished without leaving
any result. He put the aggregate provision made
by the votes at £19,000,000, and the money's worth
actually discoverable at no more than £14,000,000,
so that a balance of £5,000,000 remained unac-
counted for. Sir Baldwin Walker, the Surveyor of
the Navy, took up these figures, and now claims to
account without reserve for every sixpence of the
money. The committee appointed by the Treasury
to inquire into the Navy Estimates and their results
have also produced their statements, and from these
and other explanations together we can at length,
we hope, put the public in the right way of unra-
velling this desperate enigma.
It is strange enough to observe on the very
threshold of the investigation that Lord Clarence
enormously understated his own case. Read by the
only light he could find for the purpose, it was, in
reality, infinitely stronger than he made it out to be.
The money actually voted was very much more, the
money's worth producible very much less, than he
thought. The aggregate sum voted for the purposes
in question was not £19,000,000, but £22,000,000,
whereas the actual outlay upon new ships, instead
of being £7,000,000, as he estimated, was only
£5,000,000; and though in another item he had
made a mistake in an opposite direction, and had also
taken no account of £2,000,000 worth of ships
built and paid for by contract, the gross deficit,
according to his principle of calculation, was really
nearer ten millions than five. How, then, is all
this to be squared ? Why, exactly as we pre-
dicted at the time. The balance went in an infinity
of expenses for which Lord Clarence had made no
allowance, and which, in very truth, nobody could
ever have imagined. He had allowed for the fair
wear and tear of ships in commission a goodly sum
of some £6,000,000, and probably thought' that
in that item he had covered most of the " contin-
gencies" very reasonably. It turns out, however,
that he was a round million short of the mark even
in the immediate reckoning on this head, while
besides this there are items without end,
for which he took no thought, but all of which
figure to terrible purpose among the incidental costs
of the fleet. The mere expenses of moorings and
dockings, of cranes, capstans, and lighters, of re-
ceiving and delivering stores, and of dealing with
the transport of stores generally, is barely covered
for the ten years' period by an allowance of
£2,500,000 ; and there are further "incidental ex-
penses" amounting to £150,000 more. Then, there
are foreign yards to be considered as well as those
at home, and these establishments spend half-a-
million of their own in " repairs, &c." As to
stores, the outlets, ordinary and extraordinary, for
these supplies are wonderful. They are sent to
foreign yards or stations ; they are purchased by
naval commanders or British Consols, and the bills
sent home, or they are supplied to other depart-
ments of Government. Nearly two millions' worth
was overlooked in this way. Finally, whereas
Lord Clarence valued the stock in hand, over and
above its amount in 1848, at only half a million,
Sir Baldwin puts it at a million and a half. Alto-
gether, there is no doubt the expenditure of
£22,000,000 is, in a general way, vouched for and
explained. Lord Clarence had no idea of the amount
of `sundries;" in fact, nobody had, as the case itself
proves ; for, unless the consternation had been uni-
versal, we should never have got these inquiries.
Well, but how does it happen, speaking roundly,
that things have come to such a pass, and that
they are so much worse here than in France,
where greater average results have been secured, at
least in certain departments of the fleet, for a
smaller aggregate outlay ? This riddle also we
will endeavour to explain ; and in doing so we
will borrow an illustration which will be tamiliar
to most people. Let us suppose that two towns
or parishes have each a public library supported
by some species of fund, subscription, or endow-
ment ; that one establishment has 1,000 volumes,
with a limited circulation ; and that the other has
2,500, with a brisk demand and a good deal of
business. At the end of ten years let us suppose
them to compare notes, and to find that the larger
library of the two, with a larger annual endow-
ment, had bought fewer new books and had made
fewer acquisitions than the other. The explana-
tion would be this :--That what with bind-
ing, mending, repairing bookcases, extending
reading-rooms, transmitting and receiving books,
and other such incidental charges, almost all
the funds of the larger establishment had been
consumed, whereas the smaller, having fewer
volumes to deal with, fewer customers to consult,
less business to transact, and less wear and tear
to make good, found itself at last with a greater
balance disposable for solid investment. That, in
a few words, is the story which the committee's
report discloses. Ships are built, just as books
would be bought, only with the margin of
funds remaining after current expenses have
been defrayed. The French navy is the smaller
and more manageable establishment. France
has not so many ships in commission, and conse-
quently not so many ships to fit out or repair,
nor so much wear and tear to supply. This
work of fitting, advancing, repairing, and so forth,
constitutes the chief and most costly demand upon
the resources of a dockyard ; its amount is
governed, of course, by the number of ships in
commission, and therefore the number of ships in
commission determines the proportion which the
visible product of a dockyard represented in new
vessels will bear to its expenditure upon the cur-
rent. tasks of the day: It is calculated that even
in France the margin available for increase of
force would not much exceed one-fourth of the
total supplies provided, but in England the pro-
portion of the surplus to the aggregate would be
much smaller, and this it is which explains the
otherwise incomprehensible fact, that France,
' though far behind us in expenditure, has come so
near us in particular results.
We are not disposed to cavil at these represen-
tations. So far as they go, they probably convey a
correct elucidation of the puzzle which has so long
as w
rave oint re-
perplexed everybody, and none moereothbsaenrvsaediloarst
themselves. Yet there is,
ssumm t
the opening of our remarks,
ilal g p
Ar
fittings, repairs, &c.,maining for consideratidoon
resatlly. sh
laairs
og e
to assumeproportion theotfha
theset whole
soauitdlay,,,inarceiawenetalbouenxd.
never incurred without reason ? We
fpuelnlyses'an' anticipated, pated, as our readers are aware, that
vouchers of some kind winoduelecla,btehporrcedwucaesd
ufoorsuasl!
ehxerpeenodf ed
malversation; or foul play. But
otanhneeyywnecessity for fittings and repairs some-
trtsihimeenieoosnitngratuitously created ? One great complaint
has always been, that ships in the most perfect
order are sent into a dockyard, to be pulled to pieces
one week, and put together again the week akr,
so that the labourers have work made for thelia
twice over. Such a system would allow the autho-
rities, no doubt, to produce regular accounts of
money expended, but it would not follow that
the expenditure itself was reasonable. On one
point we are bound to say that Sir Baldwin Wal-
ker advances a strong case, for his statement
certainly represents the outlay upon the architec-
tural transformation of ships as anything but con-
siderable. On the other hand, however, the cost
of " fitting, repairs," &c., is vastly beyond even
the popular conception of the charge, and this isf
the identical point on which the great weight ofs
suspicion was invariably thrown. People al awtoYo
fancied that a ship was made and remad
• ement
often, not only in construction, but in ecluiP
for sea. The waste on the former head
outgoings are
to be small, but on the latter the
lso unavoid-
tremendous beyond belief. Are theyyot
aLll calls for
able ? That is the question turns old
reply.