The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-06 00:00:00

BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA.

The thirtieth annual general meeting of the pro-
prietors of this bank was held yesterday at the
London Tavern ; Mr. W. B. Hume in the chair.

The report stated that the net profits of the past
year contrasted favourably with those of 1864 and
1863, having amounted, after making ample provi-
sion for all bad and doubtful debts, to 177,877, as
against £72,570 in the previous year, and £61,414
in 1863. The business for the present year was also
progressing satisfactorily, and notwithstanding the
financial crisis which had been so generally and se-
verely felt in this country, no serious losses were
apprehended. The profits for the first quarter of
the present year were in excess of those for the same
period of last year. Out of the earnings the direc-
tors proposed to pay, in addition to the usual half-
yearly dividend at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum,
a bonus of 1 per cent., which would leave £7,877
to be carried to the " rest," and would bring that
fund up to £130,571.

The CHAIRMAN, in moving the adoption of the
report and accounts, explained that hitherto the
public meetings of the bank had been held in their
board-room in St. Helen's-place, where they 'had
been for so many years ; but as their lease of those
premises fell in at Lady-day last, and the landlord
insisted on a very large increase of rent, and as it
was impossible on those premises to make any per-
manently comfortable and healthy arrangement for
their clerks, the bank-offices had been removed to
Bishopsgate-street, where, though otherwise eligible
and convenient, the board-room was not sufficiently
capacious for the public meetings of the company.
Henceforth, therefore, those meetings would be
held at the London Tavern. He trusted that the
report presented would be regarded as satisfactory,
since it showed a progressive increase in their
annual profits, and afforded something like an
assurance of future success. In the year 1863
they had been obliged to withdraw from the
" rest," or undivided profit, £lO,OOO to meet losses
for which they had not before sufficiently pro-
vided. Last year, however, the directors were en-
abled to pay an additional bonus of 1 per cent., and
restore £2,500 to the rest. This year they were in
a position to give the same bonus, and to transfer
to the rest the balance of that £lO,OOO. (Cheers.)
Since the last meeting their general manager, Mr.
Paton, had visited and inspected the establishments
and branches of the bank on the coast of the Pacific,
and he had discharged the duty intrusted to him
with an ability and i
He
hntdelligen ce entitling him to the
highest credit
made
the whole of the business
the transacted at those estab-
lishments, and, after most able reports on
fullym.nute examination of
s
every account, his reports
sion of a portion of the bank's
capital justified
systified the. diver-
roofm the East,
where they were crippled by a tom from
lation, to the West, where their capital hadfalse al e
frees-
scope. ir
es e-
scope. Since the last meeting the directors had also
gone through all the accounts with the manager
from New York, who was a most intelligent officer,
.and,Ao far as they could judge, the business of that
branch vas goingon satisfactorily. The only subject
for regret was that in Canada nothing had been
done as yet to place their banking capital in a better
condition. Our Canadian brethren, determined not
to suffer more than was necessary by the abroga-
tion of the Reciprocity Treaty, had sent Commis-
sioners to visit the West Indies, the Central Ame-
rican Republics, and the Brazils, to see what arrange-
ments could be made between those places and the
British North American Provinces, and they anti-
cipated that the result would be a very good direct
tradethestbaetetws e, eanndthtohse parts and Canada. Portions
of that trade had already passed to them through
of the profit and
said that
...EWITT
whole hoped eventually to get the
.
and the whole of the commission
arising from ipt, di
Mr. T 4
would in future n instead of indirectly.
very poor business,
and.
dat banking in Canada was a
he trusted that the directors
the branches on directthe
epamore of their attention to
thought Pacific, and less to Canada.
In fact, he
withdrew their fang that
and found
some better employment for their ca Canadathe sooner they
laws of Canada prevented the ban
for if the usurycaPi
tal the better;

obtaining more than 6 per cent. for their money
there were other quarters in which it might be ap-
plied with much more advantage.

The CHAIRMAN said that the directors had trans-
ferred to the branches on the Pacific as much capital
as they thought they could safely deal with at first.
As they gained more experience they would increase
that amount if they found profitable employment
for it.

The llon. G. J. GOODHUE (London, Canada West)
defended Canada, and contended that it afforded a
good field for the employment of as much capital as
the bank had there.

The motion was then agreed to, and the proceedings
terminated with a vote of thanks to the chairman.

Exclusion of Prize Ships from Neutral Ports.

The disposition of most of the neutral Govern-
ments during modern wars is to prohibit the bring-
ing of naval prizes within their ports. Ships of
war may enter, but vessels that they may capture
are forbidden admission. It is the duty of a belli-
gerent, upon the capture of a prize, to send her into
one of his own ports, where her status and liability
can be properly determined by a prize court. But
this obligation must depend somewhat on oppor-
tunity ; and in case of inability to get the prize into
port, it has been held that the captor may destroy
her. We need scarcely say that this privilege is
particularly dangerous to neutral interests. If a
merchant ship of a belligerent is captdred with
neutral property on board, which would be released
upon trial before a prize court, the commander of a
ship of war may not, and usually does not, trouble
himself to remove the property, even if it is clearly
known to belong to a neutral. Indeed it may
be impossible to do so, and if he destroys the ship,
all that is in her suffers the same fate. This was
experienced several times during the late rebellion.
The ports of the world were closed against rebel
cruisers, and they had none of their own. They
therefore made short work with their prizes, and
although the property of American citizens suffered
in greater degree, there were severe losses endured
by neutral shippers, who were consequently without
any redress.
This subject comes once more into notice in con-
sequence of the war now existing between Spain,
Chili, and Peru. And we have already an instance
of the manner in which shutting neutral ports
against prize vessels may hereafter work. A
Peruvian iron-clad, on the voyage from Brest
to the Pacific, captured the Dorothea, a Spanish
vessel, off the coast of Brazil ; she was
taken into Rio Janeiro, but the Brazilians
having, by proclamation, closed their ports
against prize vessels taken by either bellige-
rent, she was ordered away. The Peruvian
captain, therefore, took out of her the cargo,
sent the Dorothea to sea, and as soon as
she was beyond the limits of the Brazilian jurisdic-
tion, set fire to her, and she was totally destroyed.
The excuse of this act was that it would have been
impossible to send the ship with safety round Cape
Horn, and, therefore, the difficulty was disposed of
in a summary way. Now this is a precedent which
will have its effect not only upon Peruvian and
Spanish vessels, but also upcn the Spaniards.
Captures of prize vessels made in the Pacific by the
latter may all be subjected to similar treatment,
the excuse being that the nearest port is in Cuba,
and that the dangers of Cape Horn render the
task of, sending a prize vessel there impossible.
Should the prizes taken by either belligerent have
foreign property on board, not contraband of
war, the chances are that it will be sacrificed ; and
although there may be a right of reclamation
against the nation which destroys it, such demands
are subject to ruinous delays, which break up
merchants and scarcely promise restitution to their
children. If any one wants a proof, let him
read the history of the indemnity sought from
France for aggressions on American commerce over
sixty years ago, and they will find it to be a narra-
tive of ruin to American merchants, and of hope
deferred to their descendants. The only reason
given for the prohibition of the entrance of prizes
into neutral ports is that it will make captures more
difficult, and is therefore a protection to commerce;
but the assertion of the right to burn a prize vessel
that cannot be conveniently taken into port, which
right was extensively resorted to during the late
American rebellion, nullifies all the supposed advan-
tages of exclusion, and shows that the rule is no
benefit to the nations which promulgate it, but is
rather a means of serious injury.—Anglo-American
Times.