The Sun.
London, England, 1857-08-31 00:00:00

THE ROYAL SURREY GARDEN'S.

The following letters have been addressed to the
editor of the Times :

Sir,—l do not doubt that your columns are open to
me for self-defence. In your City Article of Thursday
last at iistated, that "as to the Surrey Gardens the facts
appear to be such as must, sooner or later, lead to some
criminal proceedings ;" and " that Mr. James Coppock
of Cleveland-row, St. James's, who is represented to
have been the acting director, makes no sign." Such a
reference to my particular name, on the day of a
public meeting of hostile parties interested, was cal-
culated t:3 do me personal prejudice and injury. I
make no complaint of your report of the proceedings
in the Times of Friday ; but the affidavit by Mr.
Coombe was never read or used. Your own report says
it' was fil:d "without remark or discu•sion." I was
wholly unaware of the contents of that affidavit until I
read it in your journal. The directors were all equally
ignorant of the document, • therefore, of course, could
not file any answer. I will hereafter prove it to be a
tissue of garbled statements, and I pledge myself to con-
tradict alt its material averments. I have ample proof
in- the handwriting and correspondence of Mr. Coombe
himself that such affidavit is substantially untrue.
In our leading article of this day (Saturday) you
co nment on that gentleman's affidavit, and I am alleged
to have received a larger sum of money for my security
than even Mr. Coombe states ; whereas I was not the
recipient of a farthing, txcept so far as I foolishly sub-
sc,tnecl my original lien iu shares.
I could not make any " sign" until the day I did
make it. My fir 4 opportunity was that before a compe-
tent tribunal. The previous meeting of shareholders re-
presenting a small portion of the capital was ariony•
wou-ly convened, and personally I had no notice that
any such meeting had been called. It as not designed
that I should be present, and if I had known of such
a partial meeting of a few shareholders I should not
have attended.

I now challenge the most searching inquiry into my
acts: Neither directly nor indirectly have I derived the
smallest pecuniary benefit from the Surrey Gardens.
I did not originate or plan the company. I originally
joined it reluctantly. I ultimately agreed to take shares
to the full amount' of my charge upon the gardens from
my desire to aid the previous proprietor, to whom I had
advanced the full value. I thought the company would
be profitable, or I should not have embarked my entire
and large debt in the risk. My brother directors and
myself laboured successfully in the first season. The
result was deemed by us and the shareholders t justify
a dividend. We then prepared for a second season on a
more liberal scale of outlay. The past season has signally
failed us. Our expenses were too great, our capital
was insufficient for such an undertaking. The average
weekly receipts of the second season have not beep} more
than half those of 1856. We endeavoured to reduce our
expenses, but we were constantly advised by the very
persons who now calumniate us to increase rather than
diminish them, as the only means of retrieving losses.
We could not and did not take any measure to increase
our capital, and we too late discovered that, as amateur
directors of_music management we could not profitably
conduct such a place of public amusement. Creditors
became pressing, the joint-stock property was in danger,
actions at law were commenced, and applications to
wind up the company were threatened. Under such
circumstances the " Winding-up Act" w our only
alternative. Our direction was originally composed of six
members, to Christmas last ; we had no differencer. At
Christmas we added a seventh gentleman to our
board. In May last one of our body resigned, solely be-
cause he was dealing with the company in business, and
therefore could not legally continue a director. In the
month of July last two other directors resigned. We
met once a week, and occasionally oftener. The direc-
tore throughout their administration were unpaid, and
had no privilege beyond any other shareholder. I may
fairly add, without prejudice to my fellow-directors, that
during this season my Parliamentary agencies required
my almost exclusive personal attention, end unavoidably
limited my p7swer of attendance at the meetings of the
direction. We shall hereafter have full opportunities for
public explanation of all our joint and several acts.
I will now only add that the full amount due to the
Seacole fund bas been paid to Cox and Ce., the bankers.
To the Surrey Garden! the Seacole festival was a lose,
and the net profit to that former fund was 223/. 9s. 81.
There has be n a difference between that fund commit-
tee and us as to what portion of the net receipts belonged
to the Seacole fund. If it be elleged that any larger
sum than the one now paid is justly, or morally, or
equitably due to that clarity, it shall he left to arbitra-
tion ; and, aided or unaided by my brother directors, I
will not hesitate a moment individually to pay any fur-
ther sum awarded.
Whatever my personal want of judgment or common
sense in this company may have been, I will not rest un-
der charges of want of integrity. I have forborne to re-
taliate on those who have unjustly abused me. The com-
mon o ject of all really interested ought to be the future
profitable conversion of the gardens. The music-hall is
the best in the united kingdom, and the gardens have no
metropolitan or provincial equal.
The directors will concur in any plan to promote the
remaining interest of the creditors and shareholders, and,
they will endeavour to discharge their duty regardless of
calumny or inisrepreentation.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
JAMES COPPOCS.
3, Cleveland-row, Westminster, Aug. 29.

Sir,—ln consequence of the grave accusations made
through the press again 4 the directors of the Royal
Surrey Gardens for appealing to the Court of Bankruptcy
for protection against the legal process taken by one of
their own servants, it is only right that the public should
be Intide aware that that servant was M. Jullieo, who
on the 3d of August inst., served on the company a writ
with notice of bankruptcy for 500/., being a month's
salary duo the 31st of July, for three weeks of which
period he was absent and travelling through the pro-
vinces under the auspices of Mr. Beale, for his own
benefit, having appiinted a deputy to be paid by the
directors.

With regard to the other charges against the directors,
the public are requested to withhold their judgment until
after the special meeting of shareholders about to beheld.
In denial of the assertions made by M. Julien in refer-
ence to his salary and that of his band, I beg to state
that between the 30th July, 1856, and the 2d June, 1857,
(10 month&), he has received on account of his salary
2,5481. 15 .G 1., and that he has been paid on account
of Hi hand 4;789/. 101., leaving a balance due of 2681.
14s. 6d. in full of all claims to the 12th of August inclu-
sive, when they ceased to be under our control—for the
correctness of which statement the books of the company
are vouchers.—l am, Sir, your humble servant,
Tilos. K. HOLMES, one of the Directors.
13,,,yal Surrey Gardens, Aug. 29.

BENGAL MILITARY ORPHAN SOClETY.—lntimation
has just been received from the general management of
this institution in India, that, in consequence of the dis-
turbed state of that 'country, all female wards will be
permltted to remain in England after attaining the age
of e'ghteen, in the enjoyment of pension, until the 31st
December, 185 a. This liberal and well-timed relaxation
of the ordinary rules will relieve the minds of many who
have cinsidered themselves doomed to go out to India
in a few onths, and participate in the terrors and real
dan;era of the .Anglo Indian population.—sillas Ind
dila Mail.