The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-29 00:00:00

'Rill be contented to lop down the programme

so very deplorably.

We are in hopes that the

Commons of England will decide agailist a

hick street as the fit in locality for the New Law
Courts. \Ve are in hopes that, after all, the New Law

Courts, wherever they m 'ha eventually erected, will

be not unworthy of being designated a Palace of

Justice. We are in hopes that, notwithstanding
all Mr. LOWE'S rough and ready arguments in the

way of economy, that the Palace of Justice (that is to

be) will look northwards on the Strand and south-
wards en the river--will be worthy of its juxta-

position to S merset House—will 1.):?. worthy of rising

to view within sight of St. P..ul's Cathedral i:I the

East and of the houses of Pariilment in the Wes,

—will be worthy at once of the Ti►uwe3 itself and

of the Thames Embankment.

THERE have been bigger failures than that .of
BARN ED'S Banking Company, but none more dis-
graceful. This company closed its doors on April
18, 1800, just nine months after they were first
opened. Considering that the bank had a nominal
capital of two millions, this was rather rapid work,
even in twit fitTnouo yoat• of talltlie. 4,..-na ft, oil, DLit
Liverpool men are wiser now than they were then,
and the wonder is not that the bank lasted only nine
months, but that it lasted nine weeks. The
directors were nine in number ; three of them were
MOZLEYS, and they are the chief heroes in that most
scandalous story which has just been published by the
gentlemen who were appointed to watch over the
interests of the unfortunate creditors. This report is
certainly one of the most e..traordinary documents
ever published, and by the side of it certain other
notable cases now before the law courts appear dull
and uninteresting.
The original bank of I. DARNED and Co. became
converted into a limited liability company just
about the time that OVEREND, GURNEY, and Co.
underwent the same transformation. The transfer
was effected chiefly by Mr. L. B. MOZLEY and his
uncle, who were, so to speak, the bank itself, and
were considered of sufficient commercial standing to
guarantee to the shareholders of the company the
assets of the old business, which were stated to be
about two millions sterling. The capital of the
reconstituted bank was divided into 40,000 shares of
£3O each. The whole of them were, in a fashion,
allotted, and, with one or two trifling exceptions, the
amount of £lO per share was registered as paid. Of
these shares, however, only about 14,000 were held
by bond fide shareholders. The remaining 26;000
stood in the names of adventurers, speculators, and
clerks without means or resources. The latter had
lent themselves to the Messrs. MOZLEY to assist in
floating the bank, and the Messrs. MozLEY in
return paid up the £lO call on these nominee shares
with money drawn from the banking company.
Of these shares there are 16,300, which should have
produced on calls £660,000, which have produced
R 4,000; and 12,300 shares which should have pro-
duced £492,000, but which have produced nothing.
Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that
"about a year after the stoppage the money of the
creditors seemed gradually vanishing," and that they
determined to form an association to watch over
their interests. The truth is that Liverpool
morality is of a very peculiar character. It thrives
best under the most unfavourable circumstances; it
thrives worst under the most favourable. Those of
the unlucky shareholders who have made the greatest
efforts to meet the calls are small tradesmen and
other persons, who have been sorely pinched in
making up their contribution of £19,500. " The
higher we have gone," say the three gentlemen
appointed by the Shareholders' Association, " the
less inclination we have found to prove that honour.
and high position are inseparable qualities."
It is when the highest point of all is reached
that this separableness is most apparent. It is when
we come to the directors that, with two exceptions,
we find the greatest reluctance to meet their obliga-
tions. Two of them have discharged their liability
to the estate; the others have not done so; and of
the Mozr.Ey family the three examiners say, " They
are, to all appearance, the only persons who have not
suffered in their style of living, or in their peace of
mind by the disastrous result to the affairs of the
company." Why should they have suffered? For
the
bamtnk and what the niiiem,oant they
months' swindle has been a most'pro-
fitable transaction. Let us see what they put into
the
C HATtLES MOZLEY is thheav
he was actually emdillrai
ewnnairoeut
of
ff it.th the
31
el rt:
that is forthcom
winogrth £'l3 000, which is the amount
to meet liabilities of £230,304.
ioszelextT,
that he
ihl le hgeinvceesfotri tthhelo) ef
aeLlleealt*loYsal\yll.-wCi It.ihlAtrshieJ:PsharE
all that he posesses. This is more than his
nephews can say. Mr. C. F. MOZLEY owes
the bank for calls and other liabilities £19,040. To
meet this liability he holds shares in four companies,
worth together 1-68, and furniture worth 14 17 s.
There is also "an unsound horse," sold at TATTER_
BALL'S for £9 6s. ; but as the bill for the keep of this
noble charger amounts to £26, the staed can hardly
be act down .as an asset. Mr. C. F. MozLE.y's
deficiency is, therefore, £19,507. Mr. L. B.
MOZLEY has outshone his relatives. He
owes on calls £214,200, he has overdrawn
his account £8,243, and he has other
liabilities lmounting to £118,282; altogether his