The Express.
London, England, 1856-09-13 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13.

Ulan' the obareholders of the Unity take imme-
diata and efficient steps to put the Company on a
better fooirg as regards the public, there can be no
dcubt in the minds of those who read the report of
the special meeting held on Thursday last, that IN
fate is sealed. The object of that meeting waa
enable tea Directore to lay before the shareholdies
the reasons which induced them unanimously
accept the resignation of Mr. BAYLIS." Their Nor
sous ware very clearly given. Re domineered sow
thew ; he negteeted the business of the company k
order to get up new schemes; and he plunged theoote-
peu.y intoespensee, absurd and unnecessary. We are
disposed to smile at the idea of all theme gentlemen
cowering before the awful Mr. BATLIS like school-
boys in presence of their pedagogue, and have
little sympathy with them; but the charge of neglect
of his duties is a much more serious one, and it it is
true, and if the statements made by Mr. VAUGHAN are
correct, it is to he regretted that some more active
steps were not taken by the members of the Boiled to
arrest a course of proceeding which was telling se
injuriously on the interests of the Unity. Betwusa
May and August, 1856, the number of new policies
was less by 125 than during the same period of 1856;
the difference in the amount insured was 37,8001.,
although "every poor fellow employed in the
Unity Bank was compelled to insure his
The premiums received during that period
were 1,5161. lees than in 1855: between March 1 lad
3-aly 91 (tour months) 104 policies were suffered to
lapse, dinrioiehiog the premium receipts by 6151., and
the number sod importance of policies abandoned
were increasing. These are serious results of the
neglect attributed to Mr. BAYLIS, who appears from
the general testimony to Dave been the very soul of
the concerti, from his energy and activity. Bat hie
friend Mr. Dlecett says that " Mr. BAYLIS is a
company maker; he cannot help it, and =Mat
you restr,in him, he will go ore making companies to
the end of time." Now it is much to be regretted that
some provision was not made for a division of laborer
n order that Mr. BAYLIS might have been allowed
free scope for his ingenuity in getting up companies,
at any salary that might be thought adequate, and
that some one else might have been found to look
after them when they were at work. The Directors
tell tie that the wonderful results promised by Mr.
BAYLIS have • disagreeable jack ()leathern quality
about them. " When they got into Pall-mall they
were to do a great business, but when they got into
the new office the business was not Incensed. Oa
the fat of May the bank was to open, and then the
great increase was to take place." Instead of which,
the business is (cling cif. Some two months ago Mr.
BATLIB published an address to the Unity shunt
holders which indiestr d every different state of things
It is one of his own maxims that the success
of an insurance company is to be measured chiefly
by the amount of new business obtained ; how, Uses,
does he reconcile the tolling off of the new business
with the bowed success? It was not desirable that
he should hint at the real state of thing., bat he
might at acy rate have left the subject alone. We
ingested at the time that "truth" was a very valu-
able ingredient in the successful conduct of a public
company, and we beg once more to hint that is
addition to " great powers and powerful brains"
(tette, Mr. Itlecut), a scrupulous respect for troth
is a very desirable quality in a Manager. The
third ground of dissatisfaction on the part

of the Directors is the extravagant expendi-
ture; bat surely they are equally responsible for
that evil with Mr. BAYLIS, although it may be
urged on their behalf as a palliative that they seem,
as a general role, to hays at at the board merely to
do his bidding.
On the question, however, which is of more imme-
diate interest to the public, namely, why the Com-
pany withheld 1,2601. from Mr. AITKIN, very little
new light has been thrown. Two of the Directors
at least, Mr. TATLOII and Mr. JACKSON, seem to have
proteeted at once against the iniquity; but their
sense of justice was smothered by the " powerful
brains" of Mr. BAYLIS, who is distinctly charged by
Mr. JACKSON with having been a party to the compro-
mise, knowing ell the facts; and this is oorroborated
by Dr. LLOYD, who states that be went into Mr.
BAYLIS'S room on his return to town and related all
the circumstances to him. It is a mere question of
eredibility. Mr. BAYLIS steads up as the champion
of indisputability, and as he founds his title to the
emilldesee of the shareholders on the resistance he
has offered to au infraction of the main principle of the
institution—the indisputability of the policise—we
naturally looked for some explanation of his letter to
WIELAND of the 18th of June, in which he proposes
coolly to set aside this very policy altogether, "if
any nppremiou as to health has taken plaoe;"
the policy having then been in faros nearly
six month.. There is no mistake as to Mr.
BATLIS'S ideas on his standard principle of
indisputability. On Thursday he stated distinctly
that "if there bad been any concealment at the time
the proposal was mad•, he naderstood the Odin vo.
lantarily took the rink on its own shoulders! and
nevertheless he proposed to WILLA/CD to try and
evade the claim which was becoming imminent, and
SS WILLAND did 'tithing in the matter, Mr. BAYLIS
must have known that there was no ground for dis-
puting the policy, except murder or suicide. It
is evident, at any rate, that on the 18th of JUDO, the
4. great powers, the uncommon mind, sod the
powerful brains" had got into a terrific muddle—
they were probably absorbed in getting up some of
the sew companies which his friend Mr. Macaulay'
he cannot help making; and until we have some
explanation of this eine/tiler circumstance we mast
believe that Mr. BATS did adopt Dr. LLOYD'S
views as to the propriety of this transonic's, whirl
be eh aruterime as " foul," " improper and unjusti-
fiable," and " a violation of their contract." Mr.
MLCIIL we presume, hom the letter published by Mr.
BAYLIS, has perfectly mastered the cue, and perhaps
be eau Aid time to favour the public with an expla.
nation of this purs'iog iococsistency, which Mr.
BAYLIS is evidently incapable of elucidating.
As to the part taken by Dr. LLOYD and WIELAND
there rin be no two opinions. It matters little what
Dr. Ltotb's impressions were when he went down
to Glasgow; WIELAND'S letter shows that on July 3
they "both, upon further inquiry, believed that no
foul play had been practised." On the 4th, Dr.
LLOYD writes a letter to Mr. AITKIN, the insane,
fully confirming that statement, and yet be person-
ally clinches the bargain with Mr. AITXIN which
deprives him of 1,2501., to which be ism questionably
entitled. Dr. LLOYD and WIELAND seem to hive been
the antes darnOes of Mr. BAYS: the one was his,
boom friend, the other owed his Olugow appointment

%bias ; and is it to be supposed that, after the ex-
plioit statement we have quoted, Dr. LLOYD would
have given Mr. BAYLIS to uoderstand in his verbal
account of the transaction that there was suspicion
of murder? We have Mr. BAYLItee own evidence on
this point : he says, " I do not know what circum-
stances justified the compromise, and that is exactly
the point I wish to have made clear." If, on the 11th
of September, he is still ignorant of any circumstances
(and there was but one circumstance which could have
rendered it even politic) to justify the compromise,
how was it that, without the knowledge of the
Board, he took upon himself to adopt it, and
asked them on July 7th for a cheque for 7501. to send
to WIELAND ? We are utterly usable to reconcile
these circumstances with that high feeling of honour

to which Mr. BAYLIS lays claim, to the exclusion of
his fellow Directors; the only difference between
them that we can see is this, that when the disrepu-
table bargain had been struck, some of the Directors
adopted it, in spite of the " indisputability" principle;
and while the deoeased lady was still alive, but in a
critical state, Mr. BAYLIS proposed to defraud the
' husband of the whole 2,000 i. unless he chose to go to
law tor its recovery. One thing at any rate is clear,
that the indisputable character of the Unity policies is
considered by Mr. BAYLIS to be all moonshine, a
good " springs to catch woodcocks," like the annuities
to distressed policy-holders and shareholders, the
apprenticeship fees ; the educational fund, and the
rest of the" Unity principles." It was, no doubt, a
very splendid ides, and a very attractive one; bene-
ficial to the nati/o post futon) generation of share-
holders and policy-holders, but good for nothing unless
rigidly carried out. But if the Directors, and if Mr.
BAYLIS, the inventor of the schema, cannot resist
the temptation of leaking an initiations profit for
their shareholders by ignoring the fundamental prin-
ciple of the phi, what probability is there of the
other principles being carried out by their seceessereP
At any rate, the public has had fair warning as to
the worth of the Unity policies, unless the share-
holders devise some means of marking, in an unmis-
takeable manner, their reprobation of this scandal-
ous breach of faith.

An absence of moral courage, or a strange want of
moral feeling, marks the conduct of all parties in
this lamentable business ; but, at the same time,
the public ought not to forget that both the
Directors and Mr. Barua have had no personal
ends to serve in the transaction ; it was far
the benefit of the shareholders that they have
compromised their honour; a singularly shortsighted
view of the interests entrusted to them, since they
have seriously jeopardized the very exirence of the
whole of the Unity institutions. We have not spared
Mr. BAYLIS, because we have a great ion to
three assumptions of spotlees nicety of honour with
so many doubtful points hanging to them ; but he is
evidently the most important person in the practical
working of the Company, and one whose energy and
restless activity the shareholders will find it difficult
to replace. To him, however, is mainly attributa-
ble, it would seem, the ruinous expenditure
of these concerns, chiefly because he has been under
no sufficient control; but if the shareholders can
1 find a Board of Directors who can direct his ener-
gies into a proper channel, can control his mania for
getting up companies, and keep him under their
hands, instead of putting themselves under his, it
appears to us that the "Unities" may possibly still
rollover themselves, although it will take years
to of from the public mind the series of
gross blunders which have marked their progress
I hitherto.