The Express.
London, England, 1858-01-29 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY

to convince of the policy of in the gaps
fund. Even whilst receiving the saiouncerwrat et a
dividend far larger than, conaidadog the recersseseems
ciltumstances, they had a rig to expect Name pro.
prietors indulged themselves or.slaught on the
Board for thus cruelly withdrawing from their dis-
posal this sum of 16,0661. One r,entleman " thought
" that it had been understood between the directors
" and the shareholders that the guarantee fund
" should be 160,00 W., to 1-/a increseed from that sum
"by its own dividend." "It, therefore, extremely
" utonished him, to see that impliedoontract broken
" by appropriating 16,0001. at one sweep." Another
worthy proprietor, apparently not so "extremely
" astounded," but equally unable to comprehend
the utility of a guarantee fund, declared that he
should not object if the 16,0001. had been earned to
the profit and lose account ; because, in that case,
it would still be available for future distribution, but
to add it to the guarantee fond, whence it

sould only be taken to equalise the dividend,
and not to provide • bonus, was " a stretch be-
yond his digestion." Wu there ever a more striking
illustration of the rapacity of shareholders? Ths
appetite of some people verily grows with what it
feeds upon. In remonstrances of this description
bank directors may see the inevitable consequence of
the impolitic degree of indulgence in which they
have, so to speak, educated their proprietors. The
latter have been encouraged by the boards to look
upon all realised profits as applicable solely to
dividend and bonus, and, in consequence, now feel
personally aggrieved if any important sum is appro-
priated to the guarantee fund. Yet that fund re-
mains as much their property as if they individually
divided it. It is satisfactory to remark that,
upon the occasion referred to, such narrow
views were not allowed to peas altogether
without rebuke. Another proprietor, Mr. V.
Ktvlottr, declared that, " considering the liabilities
" of the bank, he thought 200,0001. would be a
" small guarantee fond, and the sooner it amounted
"to that sum the better he should like IL" Mr.
Almost Moons, one of the directors, pointed out
that, at the time when it was agreed to fix the
guarantee fund at 160,0001., the liabilities of the
bank were only fire millions, whereas they are now
nearly eleven millions. The guarantee fund of this
bank, with the addition just made, is now 187,0141.
If 160,0001. was requisite some years ago, 300,0001.
would be the proper amount now, the business of
the bank having increased more than 100 per cent.
A well-managed bank, which holds a large gua-
rantee fund, occupies a position of great stability,
for fluctuation in the dividends is rendered next to
impossible, and, what is of still more importance,
the public are inspired with confidence by the know-
ledge that there exists an ample fund specially
applicable to meet any unforeseen contingencies.
Suppose that any one of the old London bank/ had
sustained during the recent crisis a loss so heavy as
to swallow up the current profits of the half-year
and the reserved fund. Imagine how severe a shook
the necessity of making a call would "give to the
credit, not only of that bank, but of every similar
metropolitan institution. Such a contingency ought
certainly to be rendered as remote as possible. Look
at the example of the Bank of England, who
have resolved that their "Rest," or reserved
fend, shall never descend below three millions. It
is not our object to disparage the Joint Stock Banks,
but to strengthen them. To this end the accumula-
tion of large reserved funds is emential. In com-
menting upon any points wherein the practice of 1
these establishments falls short of the proper stan-
dard, we but desire to increase their stability, in
order that they may take still firmer root, and minis-
ter in a still greater degree to the service of the
community. A true friend criticises rather than
flatters.

Tim result of the interview on Wednesday last,
between the Church Rates Abolitionists and Lord
PALIIIMSTOS, may be summed up in very few
words : Government mean to make no effort to
carry out the views of the Abolitionists, and the
latter have in consequence pledged themselves to
preen forward without delay, on their own responsi-
bility, " a Bill for the total and uncompensated
lition of Church Rates." We need not, on this occa-
sion, repeat the arguments which have long satisfied
our own minds that nothing short of an entire and
complete abolition of this indefensible and odious tax
will satisfy the demands of the country and the exi-
gency of the caw. The time for half measures, if it
ever existed, is gone by. They would create irritation
without affording relief, confuse practice without
satisfying principle, and perpetuate discord under a
pretence of seeking peace. There was one point
prominently brought out by the statements of the
Deputation, which it may be as well to place clearly
before the reader. The opponents of the abolition
are understood to be not unlikely to rest their ease
on the fact said to be made out on the face of Lord
ROBERT Ceca's recent returns, viz., that the rate is
collected without opposition or difficulty in 96 per
cent. of the parishes throughout the country. To
this allegation there are two answers, both, we
think, equally conclusive ; the first disputing its
correctness, on the ground of its entire inconsis-
tency with figures admitted on all hands to be accu-
rate ; the second, seeming its truth for the purposes
of argument, but showing that, if true, it
tells conclusively against • compulsory rate. With
regard to the first point: if Church Rates are collected
without difficulty or opposition in 93 out of every
100 parishes in which they are levied, how does it
come to pass that the income derived from this source
has shown during the last 30 years a continuous
decline from 519,0001., the amount collected in
1827, down to 314,0001., the amount collected
in 1864 ? If the non-protesting parishes are
really 95 per eent. of the whole, how are we to
account for such a result as an aggregate lose of
205.0001. of income from Church Rates in • period
of 27 years, during which the wants of the Church and
the zeal of churchmen have certainly not diminished,
while the wealth and population of the country have, '
u everybody knows, so wonderfully increased? In this
period of seven-and-twenty years the addition to the
number of churches has exceeded one-sixth; and the
rateable income of the community, as appears from the
income tax and poor rate returns, has increased in at
least equal proportion. Instead, therefore, of • loss of
200,0001., there ought to have been an approximate
addition of 100,0001. a-year to the original amount,
—in other words, the total annual amount raised by
Church Rates in 1864 might to have been 4119,0001.,
instead of 314,0001., the actual amount. We may
safely leave this argument to speak for itself. The
second answer is equally conclusive. It is said that
in 96 per cent, of the parishes cm which it is levi-
able, this rate is raised without difficulty or op-
position. The reasons for concluding this state-
ment to be incorrect have just been given ; but as-
suming for a moment that it is to be relied upon,
what does it prove ? Why, simply that in the ma-
jority of cases there would be no difficulty in raising
the rate without any compulsion at all, while in the
minority of muss, where there is opposition, its con-
pastry imposition is manifests; i:Apolitio and unjust.
Ia sheet, as Sir WILLIAM CLAT puts the argument
in the fewest possible words ;—' Where there is ale
" opposition to the collection of church rates, a com-

palary 111 W. is 'melees; when there r Mob A
" Oration, it is unjust" :Lord PA TON
could sot more wisely have eoployed power
with which his friends boast that the Peopla have
invested him, thaw by introducing end urging for-
ward a measure for the final wsttlement of a strife
in whose cessation Churchmen are not less interested
than Dissectors. Surely it required no great effort
of courage or wisdom to resolve and carry the aboli-
tion of a tax the enforcement of which is useless
wherevec it is not oppressive, and oppreesive where-
ever it is not useless. Lord PaLwaturrow has
thought otherwise; it only remains for us to urge
upon all those interested in the removal of this paltry
and vexatious impost the duty of giving their oordial
and persevering support to the Bill for "its total
" and uncompensated abolition."