The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-15 00:00:00

TEMPLE BAR.

( From the Times. )

What is to be done with Temple-bar ? From a dis-
cussion which took place a day or two ago in the Court
of Common Council, we infer that even the city authori-
ties are convinced that the Bar cannot longer remain
where it is, or as it is. The form in which the discus-
sion arose was this :—A petition, signed by some fifty
or sixty persons, inhabitants of the parish of St. Dun-
stan-in-the-West, had been presented to the Common
Council. The petitioners opposed themselves to the re-
moval of Temple-bar, on the ground that it is an old
landmark ; that the removal of it is not rendered neces-
sary by the requirements of trade or commerce, nor is it
desirable for any reason connected with the approaches
to the city. The petitioners admit that the traffic is
frequently checked just in the neighbourhood of the Bar,
but they attribute this circumstance to the confluence
of the Holborn and Fleet-street traffic at the end
of Chancery-lane. It is furthermore alleged. by the
fifty-six gentlemen who have signed the petition, that
the wishes of the neighbourhood are decidedly op-
posed to any removal of the Bar. Now, it certainly
would appear that, whatever the merits of the
case may be, Temple-bar will not be saved by the argu-
ments of this select knot of petitioners.
.Temple-bar is an
ancient landmark. Does the landmark indicate any in-
formation which may not be as fully and far more con-
veniently conveyed in twenty other ways. Cannot the
limits of the city be as well assigned at this particular
spot by means of pillars or posts as at its other boundaries?
If, then, the city bounds may be as effectually marked
in many other ways as by the present dingy arch, is
there any merit in the arch itself which should induce us
to leave it standing ? Certainly it has no claim from its
antiquity. Sir Christopher Wren—more shame to him !
--built it as we see it. We believe we express the com-
mon opinion—it is most strongly our own—that the Bar,
architecturally speaking, is a mere deformity. It is no-
thing better than an ugly, dingy nuisance. Such points,
however, turn upon the taste of individuals, and we are
quite willing to leave this one to the opinions of the majo-
rity. Tim the petitioners say that the Bar is no obstruction
to commerce. This is a hasty assertion, and does not tally
with tb& 1,3 t the case. If the west end of London
could be brought to think of the east end as of a city
lying in the same latitude and longitude, we believe the
city shopkeepers would find their account in the change.
As far as the influence of Temple-bar is felt, it operates
to keep up the distinction between the town of shops
and the town of customers. Many a lady would extend
her drive to Ludgate-hill, if a progress into the city did
not present itself to her imagination in the light of an
Arctic Searching Expedition. In the interest of the city
shopkeepers, then—and we presume their interests are
in some degree involved in the " requirements of trade
and commerce,"—it is highly desirable that the distinc-
tions between east and west London should be oblite-
rated as soon as possible. The best shops in this me-
tropolis lie to the east of Temple-bar. It is a pity the
residents in Mayfair and Belgravia cannot be induced to
give them a trial.
We now pass to the third reason given by the 56 pe-
titioners. The removal of Temple-bar is not desirable,
they tell us, for any reason connected with the approaches
to the city. Reasons such as those here alluded to
must naturally fall under one of two heads. It is a
question of beauty or a question of convenience. As
one of beauty, as we have before said, we consider
Temple-bar simply hideous. Look at it from east or
west, and it falls upon the eye as a kind of structure fit
for an execution, or some public ceremony of that de-
scription. Take the question as one of convenience.
The narrow gorge of Temple-bar is in itself an obstruc-
tion to the traffic, as every omnibus and cab driver knows
to his cost. Granting, however, that the constant check
of the traffic at this point must be referred to the nar-
rowness of the street at this part, rather than to the
fact that a great lumbering arch has been erected
at the narrowest point of the street, still, in order to
widen the street, we must begin by getting rid of the
arch. It has been suggested that the houses may be
pulled down on either side, and that a Temple-bar—not
the present smoky old abomination, but a new Bar,
splendid with youth, should be erected in the middle of
the street, and stand there, just as ou the Parisian
Boulevards we see the Fortes St. Denis and St. Mar-
tin. Space is too valuable at this point for any such
fopperies, even were it desirable as a matter of beauty
to have an arch at all at that particular spot. But thus
much we would say : Let the present arch be pulled
down, and then we will consider the propriety of build-
ing a new one in its place. If the proposition should
receive the assent of a hundred men of sane intellect we
will withdraw from all opposition in the matter. There
must be no check given, even were it of the slightest
kind, to the continuous traffic in the principal thorough-
fare of London. An arch at this spot, unless its
span were doubled at the least, must operate in that
direction. As to the obstruction at this point being due
to the confluence of the Holborn and Fleet-street tides
at the corner of Chancery-lane, we would simply ask
these gentlemen if Chancery-lane does not tell both ways.
It adds to the Fleet-street traffic and it eases it. As
many drays, waggons, cabs, &c., pass northward up
Chancery-lane to Holborn as southward down Chancery-
lane into Fleet-street, but we have never heard that the
inhabit ants of Holborn have complained of any obstruc-
tion at their end of the lane in consequence of the con-
tributions of Fleet- street.

One only point remains unconsidered. The fifty-six
petitioners tell us they represent the wishes of the
neighbourhood. Now, this is not altogether a matter
which we would rest upon the wishes of the neighbour-
hood, for it is a public concern ; but certainly their
wishes would have great weight with us, Is it not a
little strange that they could not come forward and ex-
press their own wishes, if they really desired that the good
old nuisance should remain a fixture ? We all know
how easy it is to get up a petition ; but by the common
apprehension this will be regarded as a failure to procure
a sufficient number of signatures. From all we have
heard—and we have received a good many communica-
tions upon the subject—the shopkeepers of Fleet-street
and Ludgate-hill would be very glad to get rid of Temple-
bar to-morrow. They would be blind indeed to their
own interests were it otherwise. Strange, then, as it
may appear, after a brief consideration of the reasons
on which the petitioners rested their case, the City
Lands Committee reported in favour of its prayer, and
recommended that 1,5001. should be devoted to repairing
and restoring the building. The Common Council, how-
ever, to their credit be it recorded, have rejected the
report by a considerable majority, and, at no distant
date, we trust it may be in our power to announce to
our readers that one of the most necessary, and certainly
the least costly of all possible city improvements, is
forthwith to be effected.

LONDON CHARTERED BANK OF AUSTRALIA

The first ordinary general meeting of shareholders in
this company was held yesterday at the company's
offices 17, Cannon-street ; Mr. Duncan Dunbar in the

chair.

------ -
The SECRETARY having read the notice convening the
meeting, proceeded to read the report, from which it
appeared that after much negotiation with the govern-
ment a charter had been obtained in December last, the
effect of which was to make the shareholders a corporate
body, under the title of "The London Chartered Bank
of Australia," with limited liability and with privilege to
bank in any part of Australia. Subsequently, efficient
officers had been appointed, the necessary amount of
capital had been called up, and suitable premises had
been secured in London. In January last the deed of
settlement had been signed and ratified with the Board of
Trade, and on the 7th of April a certificate was obtained
authorising the bank to commence business. The colonial
inspector and local managers had sailed in the "Har-
binger," and had arrived in the colonies towards the latter
end of April, and satisfactory advices had been received
from Mr. Falconer (the inspector) down to the 7th
of June. Local boards had been formed, and desirable
banking premises had been obtained in Melbourne and
Sydney, and Mr. Falconer had proceeded to Geelong to
establish a branch in that town. The report concluded
with confident anticipations as to future success, and sub-
mitted to the proprietors the following balance-sheet :
Liabilities.— Capital paid up, 367,3271. 10s. ; balance
of profit and loss account, after deducting expenses of
London office, salaries, stationery, rates, taxes, insurance,
&c., 4,017/. 16s. 4d.; total, 371,345/. 6s. 4d.
Assets.—Securities bearing interest, 172,5001. ; Mel-
bourne and Sydney branches, 174,7391. 9s. 3d. ; open
policies of insurance on account of branches' 4,2501. ;
preliminary expenses, including law expenses, fees rela-
tive to charter and deed of settlement, advertising, fitting
up London office, furniture for ditto, passage money, and
outfit of officers to colonies, &c., 4,0551. 9s. 11d. ; bill
and transfer stamps on hand, 3731. 2s. 6d.; cash on hand
and at banker's, 15,4271. 48. Bd.; total, 371,345/. 6s. 4d.
The above documents having been read,

Pa V • %.0
The CHAIRMAN moved their adoption by the meeting.
Mr. COICHEAD objected to thg mode in which the ba-
lance-sheet had been drawn out, and asked for informa-
tion on the various items. Supposing the information
to be unsatisfactory he should move that the balance-
sheet was not sufficiently explanatory in its details, and
that therefore it be remodelled, printed, and circulated
amongst the shareholders.
The CHAIRMAN having said a few words in explanation
of the items of the balance-sheet,
Mr. F. DE SALIS moved the adoption of the report,
and the motion was carried unanimously.
The outgoing directors and auditors were then re-
elected, and thanks having been voted by acclamation to
the chairman and directors, the proceedings terminated.
The following are the directors and auditors for the en-
suing year :
Court of Directors—Duncan Dunbar, Esq., chairman;
William Fane De Salis, Esq., deputy chairman ; Richard
H. Browne, Esq. ; James Denis De Vitrd, Esq. ; John
Utlay Ellis, Esq. ; Thomas Dyer Edwards, Esq. ; John
Griffith Frith, Esq. ; Patrick Douglas Hadow, Esq. ;
Alexander iloyes, Esq. ; Fowler Newsam, Esq. ; James
Nelson Smith, Esq. Auditors—John Gurney Hoare,
Esq. ; Thomas Chapman, Esq.

[AnvEarrisEutwr)—Holloway's Ointment and Pills
for the Effectual Cure of Bad Legs.—Extract of a letter
from H. Watkinson, Esq., proprietor of the Spalding
Free Press, dated Dec. 15, 1852 :—" Dear Sir,—A cot-
tager, residing at Moulton, has requested me to send
you the particulars of the almost miraculous cure effected
by using your ointment and pills ; the sufferer's name is
Hewdle, who injured his leg about 14 years ago, and
although he was under medical treatment for weeks toge
ther he derived no benefit. At the age of 60 another
accident happened to the already injured leg, which left
it in a fearful condition. However, by the use of your
medicines alone, his leg has been perfectly cured.—Sold
by all druggists ; and at Professor Holloway's Estab-
lishment, 244, Strand, London.