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

THE SUN, LONDJN, THURSDAY EV

Temple. Again, in respect to the grand
original suggestion of a Palace of Justice
on the vast open space now cleared to view,
for the most part, to the north of the Thames
Embankment, between Somerset House and the
Temple—the Strand Frontage along the whole of its
northern facade was, and indeed still is, loudly in-
sisted upon as one of its conspicuous advantages.
There cannot be two opinions, in fact, as
to this—that the third plan, Mr. LowE's
plan, the plan without any Strand fron-
tage at all, is a shirking of an expense and
shirking of a difficulty. It is hiding away the New
Law Courts on one site, at least, in a back neigh-
bourhood. It is sacrificing beauty, convenince, air,
light, architectural effect, everything, to economical
considerations. Now, that, we take it, is hardly be-
fitting the dignity of the country, the majesty of the
laws, the power of England, the wealth of Lon lon.
Economy is all very well, but—meanness ? And
me.inneFs in a matter of such importance as this of a
new resting place for the administratioa of the Laws
of England? Whatever edifice shall be raised to
this end, will be; not for to-morrow, not for next, year,
not for the residue of the nineteenth century, it
be for uncounted years, it will be for posterity. And,
knowing this, to go and hide the new building
away in a little back street running parallel
with the Strand—a street so obscure that on mention-
ing it the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to explain
to an audience of Londoners, meaning, to the mem-
bers of the House of Commons, only the other even.
ing, that " there is a Street called Howard-street,"
and that there it is, in " a Street called Howard-
street," he proposed that the New Law Courts
should be erected—does appear to us nothing less

than paltry, does appear to us a mere grasping at
economy, and a mere snatching at a manifest evasion
of a difficulty, quite unworthy of the grandeur,
power, pride, pomp, and wealth of the British
Government. IVe are told now that not only must
the Law Courts be hid away in a back street, but
that it is idle to talk of them any longer as a Palace of
Justice. A Palace ! We want no more Palaces, is
Mr. LOWE'S argument. We want simply a decent
building in which to find a home for some—not for
all—of the Courts of Law. A Concentration of the
Law Courts, at one time talked of, we are assured is
quite as much of an extravagance to dream of, as it is
an extravagance to dream of their ever being built up
into a Palace of Justice. It yet remains to be see❑
whether the House of Commons is so infatuated by
this hungering and thirsting after economy that they
aN ill be contented to lop down the programme
so very deplorably. W e are in hopes that the
Commons of England will decide against a
back street as the fitting locality for the New Law
Courts. We are in hopes that, after all, the New Law
Courts, wherever they may be 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 on the river—will be worthy of its juxta-
position to Somerset House—will be worthy of rising
to view within sight of St. Paul's Cathedral i❑ the

East and of the Houses of Parliament in the West
—will be worthy at once of the Thames itself and
of the Thames Embankment.

THERE have been bigger failures than that- of
BARNED'S Banking Company, but none more dis-
graceful. This company closed its doors on April
18, 1866, just nine months after they were first
opened. Considering that the bank had a nominal
capital of two millions, this was rather rapid work,
...r nrlrl Mit
Liverpool men are wiser now than they were then,
and the wonder is not that the bank lasted only nine
months, but that it Listed 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 extraordinary 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. BARN ED 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 ;hated to be
about two millions sterling. The capital of the
I reconstituted bank was divided into 40,000 shares of
£5O 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. MOZLFY in
return paid up the £lO call on these nominee shares
with money drawn from the banking company.
Of these shares there are 16,500, which should have
produced on calls £660,000, which have produced
£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 R 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 MozLEY 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
them the nine months' swindle has been a most pro-
fitable transaction. Let us see what they put into
the bank and what they have drawn out of it. Mr.
CHARLES MOZLEY is the millionaire of the lot,
he was actually worth £23,000, which is the amount
that is forthcoming to meet liabilities of 9:30,304.
Clearly Mr CHARLES MOZLEY will henceforth be
able to say with the Pharisee that he gives tithe of
all that he posesses. This is more than his
nephews can say. Mr. C. F. Mozr.Er owes
the bank for calls and other liabilities £19,610. To
meet this liability he holds shares in four companies,
worth together £6B, and furniture worth £-14 17s.
There is also " an unsound horse," sold at TATTER-
sALL's for £9 Os. ; but as the bill for the keep of this
noble charger amounts to £26, the steed can hardly
be set down as an asset. Mr. C. F. MozLEy'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 £8,245, and be has . other
liabilities Anountizig to £115462J, Altozetkes. hip

liabilities are £340,728. His assets are shares in the
Liverpool Athenaeum, worth £10; twenty shares in
a theatre company, worth nothing ; 150 Empire
Marine Insurance shares, worth an equal amount ;
and a share in a music saloon, worth £6O ; together
£7O, leaving a deficiency of £340,658. These gentle-
men, having done so well for themselves, deserved
the confidence of the public. But public confidence
in these commercial days means money, and so on
the afternoon of the day on which the bank stopped
with liabilities £2,000,000, these three directors paid
themselves £l,OOO for a quarter's service in the
management of the bank. They had, in fact,
managed it so well, that the assets, which it was
calculated would produce £850,000, have after just
three years yielded £160,000.
Next to the astounding impudence of the MozLEYs,
that which astonishes us most is the credulity of the
Liverpudlians. Here were a gentleman worth
£132 17s. and an unsound horse, and another
gentleman, worth £7O in theatre and music-
hall shares, entrusted with two millions
of money. Nor does our surprise end here.
Having thus deceived and plundered their fellow-
townsmen, we might have expected that these
persons would have been prosecuted with the utmost
rigour of the law. On the contrary, everything has
been made pleasant for them. Instead of winding
up the company in the Bankruptcy Court, where
unpleasant disclosures would have been made,
the bank has been wound up in Chancery,
to the great advantage of the directors, and to
the great loss of the creditors and the share-
holders. The three inspectors point out that Messrs.
Mom.= declared that the bank had earned a profit
of £35,880 exclusive of interest and commission on '
current accounts, and sixteekt days afterwards the
bank closed. What has become of this amount ?
The inspectors seem to think that if the question is
put in another place than' that of the Court of
Chancery, an answer satisfactory to the creditors and
the shareholders may be obtained. It may not be
quite so satisfactory to Messrs. Mon,Ey.

THE remarkably unanimous character of the de-
bate on Sir H. SELWIN-lEBETSON'S Beerhouses Bill is

only one of amongst many signs of the change which
has come over the spirit of the House of
Commons. The progress of the last three
years has at least had the effect of convert-
ing many standard points of doctrine into
obsolete prejudices. Some clauses of what was once
the Liberal creed have fallen far behind the regene-
rated Tory programme. Amongst these may be
reckoned the old antipathy to discussion, not to
speak of legislation, on Tory licenses, landlords, and
liquor. On no subject, if we except the game
laws, did the old school wax so furious. All
attempts to interfere legislatively with the greatest
evil of the age was met with the stereotyped assertion
that Englishmen were getting more and more sober,
but that if they were not, it was impossible to make
them sober by Act of Parliament. For years the
opponents of national encouragement to drunkenness
were met by these respectably ancient pleas, and
by the " brute force " of a majority which, having
learned the virtue of beer on polling-day, did not
like the flow of the barrel to be restricted. But all
this is changed. We hear less of the impossibility of
making men sober by Act of Paliament. It is admitted
that British drunkenness is not quite satisfactory.
Mr. HENLEY cannot doubt that beerhouse legislation
has failed, and if he is not hopeful of improving the
existing state of things, he is not disposed to inter-
fere with those who wish to try. Mr. BRUCE finds
it impossible to deny that there are special evils
attendant upon beerhouses, and promises that
the whole subject of licensing shall be taken
into consideration. Meanwhile Sir H. SELITYN-
IBBETSON'S bill is allowed to pass without opposi-
tion. The measure is by no means such as to finally
satisfy the advocates of temperance, but it is a decided
step in the right direction ; and its acceptance by an
assembly which has hitherto resisted every reform of
+TIP kind is not, withnnt Riznificance.
The object of the bill is to transfer the power of
granting beerhouse licenses from the excise officers
to the magistrates. Formerly, the latter, who were
in a position to make all inquiries both as to
the requirements of the locality and the
character of the would-be liquor vendor,
had complete jurisdiction in the matter of
licensing. But since 1830 beerhouse licenses
have been granted by the revenue officers, who are
not only unable to institute any inquiry, but have
some sort of interest in granting as many licenses as
possible. All that is required of the applicant is a
residential qualification, and a certificate of character
from six householders. This sage measure really esta-
blished the principle that anybody might sell beer with-
out restriction. The residence proviso is palpably
worthless, and the testimony of six householders is so
slight a check that a. thief has been known to com-
mence dispensinghis adulterated abominations imme-
diately after leaving Prison. Such a wholesale
letting loose of unprincipled liquor vendors has been
attended with the worst results. The beer sold is
bad ; though it is evident that if people
will drink, they ought, at least, not to be
poisoned. Drunkenness has increased since
the passing of the Act. In this respect
we must judge, not by later statistics, but by
the years immediately preceding and following the
passing of the Act. And so great was the increase
of drunkenness after 1830, that even the House
of Commons of that period thought the sub-
ject worth inquiry. That the beerhouses are
nests of immorality is a fact which cannot be set
aside by the assertion that public-houses are as bad, or
worse. The bill which passed the second reading on
Tuesday deals very tenderly indeed with the question.
It provides ample facility for the granting of licenses
for the sale of beer not to be drunk on the premises,
but licenses for drinking houses will be placed on the
same footing as public-houses. In order to secure
this distinction increased powers of conviction are
provided. As a whole, the measure is only a partial
attack upon the present licensing system, but it is a
beginning. And so difficult is reform in this direc-
tion that thirty years of effort have been necessary
to secure even this slight and obvious change. In
1839 Lord BROUGHAM brought in a bill to stop this
broadcast distribution of bad liquor. In 1809 these
endeavours have been successful.

,z7,*
V.es '4`
611111 ManiNt

HER MAJESTY.

OSBORNE, April 28.
Her Majesty, accompanied by 'Princess Christian,
drove out yesterday afternoon.
The Queen, accompanied by Princess Louise,
walked and drove this morning.
Princess Christian, Princess Beatrice, and Prince
Leopold also went out.