The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-02 00:00:00

portions to their respective holdings, or disposing of it in
such manner as would "best promote the interest and credit
of the company." The deed was signed for 7,349 shares,
leaving 2,660 untaken up. Mr Barrett afterwards took fur-
ther shares, bringing up his total to 55. He received his
dividends on all his shares which he had held respectively
since 1832, 1836, and 1837, and he was returned regularly
to the Stamp-office. At a meeting of the bank directors, held
in June, 1864, they resolved to issue these surplus shares to
all present holders of shares in the proportion of one for
every five if they chose to take them up. A circular to this
effect was prepared, and the amount to be paid for each
fixed at £3O. In reply to this document Mr Barrett wrote
from Liverpool on August 2, 1861, sending a cheque on
Roberts, Lubbock, and Co. for £660, the amount payable
on 22 shares which had been allotted to him, and desiring
that the usual certificate might be sent to him. This, how-
ever, was delayed, and on receipt of the usual report in the
beginning of February, 1864—declaring 15 per cent divi-
dend and 10 per cent bonus, and stating the profits on the
year to be £44,000, and the reserve fund £90,000. Mr Bar-
rett wrote to the manager, Mr Greenland—" It is pleasing
to congratulate you on your successful operations during
1863, Wishing you increased health, &c." (Laughter.)
The bank stopped payment on Sept. 17, 1864. Mr Barrett
(added Mr Denton) was quite welcome to his certificate
now. (Laughter.) What was now asked was that the
name of Mr Barrett be placed on the list.
Mr Pat! eson handed in the affidavit of his client, which
he stated raised the question of wilful misrepresentation.
Mr Buckley thought it must be remembered that Mr
Barrett was a partner. _ _

Mr Watson--A case of self-delusion. (Laughter.)
Mr Patteaon relied on the flagrant misrepresentation
contained in the report of Feb. 4, 1864. This document
was sent to Mr Barrett, and was read by him. lie had no
opportunity of inspecting the books or verifying the ac-
counts, and was consequently entirely guided by this docu-
ment. On the 26th of May, being in Leeds, he called on
Mr Greenland, the manager, at his private residence, and
he corroborated in general and glowing terms the statements
made in the report, telling Mr Barrett of the intention of
the directors to issue the reserved shares ; and had it not
been for all this, that gentleman would not have had any-
thing to do with the matter further. What he (Mr Patte-
son) required was, evidence in reference to what the state of
the bank really was on Feb. Ist, 1864. What ho contended
was, that the £44,000 "profit" and the'` reserved fund" of
£90,000 had really had no existence at all. Ho was aware
of the difficulty of obtaining such information.
Mr Turquand thought there could be little doubt that
ice state in August was the same as its condition in Feb•
ruary, and vies versa.

Mr Patteson—Will you givo us a formal admission of
that ?

Mr Tur quand would not say a profit was not mado ; but
the losses must be taken into account before solvency could
be pronounced on. Profit was only profit after all losses
contingent or otherwise were calculated.

Mr Buckley—Either Mr Barrett is bound by the repre-
sentations of the directors after tying his own hands, or Jae
is not.

Mr Denton said that the deed provided for the appoint-
ment of a committee of inspection on the motion of any
shareholder, in the event of dissatisfaction with the ac-
count ; but Mr Barrett had had a large share of profit, and
desired more shares to increase it. It would, indeed, be a
curious thing if he could escape now,
Mr Buckley—Suppose the bank was now carrying on its
operations and making large profits would Mr Barrett re.
fuse to receive any amount offered him ? That really must
be the governing principle.
Mr Patteson said his main argument was fraud, but
Messrs Fresbfield wanted to confine the matter to a ques-
tion of contract.

Nr Buckley—Then that must be raised by an inspection
of the books.

Consideration postponed accordingly.

It transpired incidentally that Mr Greenland, the
manager of the defunct bank, was one of its shareholders,
The meeting was again adjourned.

Ten Days of a Clergyman's Life in the

Navy.

(Copy.)
Her Majesty's ship Resistance, Malta, Oct. 6, 1861.
Statement of Grievances complained of by the Rev. Frederic
Gut tens, Chaplain and Naval Instructor of her Majesty's
ship Resistance, and respectfully submitted to tho consi-
deration of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.
Last Easter I commenced, with Captain Chamberlain's
consent, a voluntary service on the Sunday afternoons.
On Sunday, Sept. 25, jug before this service, I received
a note from Captain Chamberlain, informing me that ho had
ordered one of the midshipmen to attend this service until
the end of the year, and requesting me to roport to him if
his order should be disobeyed.

On Tuesday morning (27th) I took an o; portunity of
speaking to Captain Chamberlain on the subject of this note,
telling him that I thought he must hays written it without
crae ccsnsmeration, as, of course, it would be impossible for
me as a clergyman to act as a spy on my congregation, or to
report who were, or who were not, present for punishment ;
I said at the same time how strongly I disapproved of the
punishment itself.

Captain Chamberlain at first denied that it was a punish-
ment; but corrected himself, and said that it was inflicted
for inattention at morning service.

On my saying that I could not report the boy, Captain
Chamberlain said, " Then you refuse to assist me ?" I said
I did no', that, on the contrary, I was always, as ho well
knew, most ready and willing to assist hitu to the best of my
power, but that this would place me in so false a position
with my congregation that 1 must decline the office. After
some further conversation. to the same effect we parted,
Captain Chamberlain saying, "I shall make a note of your
objection,"

In the same afternoon I received another note from
Captain Chamberlain requesting me to send him the one
he had written on Sunday, as he wished to know the exact
words of it. Thinking this a good opportunity, I took up
the note myself; a long conversation ensued. I expressly
said that I had not the slightest feeling of opposition to
Captain Chamberlain ; that I was most sorry not to be able
to do as ho requested ; that this was not a question of obey.
ing or not obeying hlm, but of doing or of not doing what I
considered it would be wrong for mews a clergyman to do ;
adding that he must know how anxious I always was to
assist him in every way I could ; reminding him how I con-
tinually gave up my opinion to his, and thought it was the
dutywhen possible, to do so; but
tha t whenofeverybody in th
cameto a e ship,
question of conscience I could not
give in for anybody; that I
might be mistaken in my
judgment on this point, but that I could not possibly be
mistaken in not doing what I felt I should be wrong to do.
Our interview ended (as it had been conducted throughout)
in a most friendly manner, Captain Chamberlain saying
that he was sorry I took the view of the case I did, and I
telling him that I felt convinced that when he thought the
matter well over he would see that I could not act otherwise
than I was acting. When I left the cabin I thoroughly
believed that the whole matter was ended, and, as I was
happy to think, without unpleasant feeling on either side.
So convinced of this was I that I left the original note on
Captain Chamberlain's writing table, and when he sent it
to me, as ho afterwards did, I destroyed it, not caring to
keep any record of the matter.

On Friday morning (we had arrived at Malta from Naples
at 9 a.m. on Wednesday) I received a message saying that
the captain wished to speak to me on deck. On getting
there I found Captain Chamberlain, who walked aft with
the commander, first lieutenant, and myself. When aft
he said " I wish to speak to you on the subject of that
note which I wrote to you on Sunday. On Tuesday you
told me you objected to do as I then desired you, and
thinking I might have misunderstood you, I speak to
you now, in the presence of these officers, and wish to
know if you still object." I answered, "I most certainly
do object; and I thought, Captain Chamberlain, that the
whole subject had been finished on Tuesday." After a
few more sentences he said "If you still object to do
as I request you, I must give you an order to the
same effect, not written, but orally, in the presence of these
officers. Will you or will you not obey it ?" I answered
" I cannot." Then he answered, "It only remains for me
to place you under arrest." I said " Captain Cham-
berlain, I have been ten years in her Majesty's navy, and
during that time have never had an unpleasant word with
any captain I have served with but wish yourself, and so
am utterly ignorant of what that involves; will you kindly
inform me ?" He answered—" Not to leave the ship, and
suspension from all duties." I then went below, and the
captain left to see the admiral.

At 12.301 was again told the captain wished to soo me on
deck, and there I found him with the commander and first
lieutenant. He said to me—" You are released, from your
arrest, and are to return to your duty without prejudice to
any trial or inquiry which the admiral may hereafter think
it right to order." I bowed and retired.

At I-30 I asked leave to g-o-o—nshoro, which was granted ;
but just as I was about to leave the ship Captain Chamber-
lain came on deck and said " I am afraid I cannot let you
go ; I am very sorry, but I am afraid I must keep you on
board." I said "Da not apologise, Captain Chamberlain ;
if it is your duty of course you must perform it," and I
again went below, wondering much at the anomaly of my po-
sition as being released from my arrest and still a prisoner.
At 4 o'clock (the captain having been occupied until then)
I went into his cabin and said, " I come, sir, to ask you on
what grounds you refused me leave to go on shore ?" He
answered, " Going on shore is an indulgence, and you have
refused to obey my orders." I said, " Then, sir, you take
upon yourself to punish me ?" "No," he said, "I do not
consider this a punishment.' • " I do, sir," I answered, and
withdrew.

On Saturday morning I wrote to the Commander-in-
Chief, through Captain Chamberlain, laying these facts be-
fore him, and appealing to him, since, I said, I could not as
a clergyman quietly submit to such indignities.
On Saturday and again on Monday Mr Cleugh, the
Government chaplain of Valetta, called on mo at the ad-
miral's request to see if he could not arrange the matter. I
said that I should be delighted if he could, without making
me disobey my conscience; but as the only terms hef,was
empowered to offer were that I would obey the order, of
course his kind intervention could come to nothing.
On Tuesday (4th) Capt, Chamberlain returned from the