The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-11-08 00:00:00

1 to the❑

tors were also to blame
mittee, by whom V
grossly, shamefully, managed—in fact, he could not th
words to express adequately the opinion he had of their con
duct. (Hear, hear.) But still the shareholders were not
free from blame. He was not going to palliate the conduc
of the directors ; but as just and honourable men, the share
holders should take their proper share of blame for -- •

ts of the concern had bee

not seei
nts annually or

the concern conducted properly.
seated to them by the directors had not been ft
cordance with the deed of settlement ; and the

had been content to receive them,

ed a

)areholde

to see whether they were in accordance, provi,.._
good dividend. The directors were also themselves much t
blame for not seeing the deed of settlement carried out in t 1
outset. (Hear, hear, hear.) He understood that,
early part of the history of the bank, one of the director
bad stated that in the first report or two no estimate
made of the probable amount of loss which might
from the then current accounts. Not having be-
come a shareholder himself till 1836, and not having th'
reports in his possession, he could not say whether such vr
the case ; but in the reports which he had, since 1836
such mention was made except
Curtis then went through the rei
1839, and 1840, with a view of pros
report of 1836 stated that the dirt
vided for all bad debts and the e-
bank, were enabled to set

led there wa

accrue

direct(

nod had apv

ts of 1

tain whether that report was true or not.
know the instructions given to the parti,

in ti

1837,1 E

fter havir

ear profits

ergies to

Let the r

balance sheet ; because if the bad debts bad been accri
since before June, 1836, then their fair share of blame r

be appropriated to the dir

Ts, and not exclusiv

Committee of Management which more recently had

engaged in the management of the bank ; but, upon t
other hand, if that report were correct, the managing dire
tors, since that period, must I
the parties wilfully to waste and

charged with havin

the money of tl

shareholders,—(Hear, .h

) In the report for 183

not appear that the directors had!

the existing liabilities of the bank ,
and 1839, no allusion was made to the subject
holders having had their attention called to the subject of
the liabilities in the report of 1837, and taken no steps, were,

to a certain extent, to blame. There was in the report for
1840 a statement, which, if the facts could be provd, would
exoderate the directors previous to 1837, and throw the blame
at once upon the Managing Committee since 1837. This
statement was to the effect, that the entire amount of the
bad debts before 1837—and those. since had been deducted
from the reserved surplus fund—which left that fund at

£36,642 9s. 10d., which was " an ample guarantee against
existing risks and liabilities." The first duty of the meeting
was to enquire whether this statement was correct, and by
whom it had been prepared. Was it true or was it false ?

The CHAIRMAN, in answer, had no hesitation in saying,
that all the reports submitted to the directors previous to
the annual meetings, were prepared by the managing direc-
tors ; and of course, the one referred to was prepared by
them. (Hear.)
Mr. CURTIS.—But of course those reports were made
und or instructions given by the general body of directors?
Mr. CIIAPPELL.—NO, no. (Hear) _ _ _

Mr. CURTIS would then ask what the duties of the direc-
tors were ? He called for the resolution of the general board
to be read appointing the managing committee, and the
instructions given to them.
The CHAIRMAN said the books should be sent for. The
duties of the directors were laid down i❑ the deed of settle-
ment ; and they vested i❑ the committee of managers
certain powers, which were there specified
Mr. CURTIS said he should likewise w;
structions given to the auditors.
The CHAIRMAN said there were no partict

auditors

ish to

fourth of the capital w

Ties of " of

Mr. CURTIS
that fact, when only
whole of it was lost
shareholders that the can
affairs of this company snould
he believed, had not, when they were appointed,
selves acquainted with their duties ; and he asked tl
man whether, when he was appointed, -he had taken
trouble to read the deed of settlement ?
The CFIAIRMAN replied that he had endeavoured most
conscientiously to understand it.
Mr. CURTIS.—Then has it not occurred to you that the
balance sheets, containing no estimate of probable loss upon

Of The plisnian
be investigated

Chair-

current accounts, were not
settlement ?

The CHAIRMAN said, he did not know that that particular
clause had occurred to him; and it was not surprising that
it had escaped his attention, when it had escaped the atten-
tion of the other directors.
Mr. J. C. DYER said, that at the last annual meeting, in

answer to the same question from Mr. Sanders, he had him-
self replied that it was a matter which had all along been
overlooked. (Hear, hear.) The omission did not then seem
a matter of blame, as was evinced by the fact that the
directors bad received the thanks of the shareholders at that
meeting. (Oh, oh.) He laid no stress upon that circum-
stance. -
__ • . . _

Mr. WILSON thought that Mr. Curtis should confine him-
self to the present delinquencies.
Mr. CURTIS said, in conclusion, he considered the share-
holders were to a'certain extent to blame for what had hap-

pened. (Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. GREIG contended that the blame rested not with the
shareholders, but with certain designing directors, who had
misled them. The books would shew who had proposed and
seconded the expulsion of Mr. Wood ; and who had proposed
and seconded the resolution, which was synonymous to ex-
pelling Mr. 011ivant. As soon as he had heard the. written
defence of Mr. Roberts, which bad been prepared by a so-
licitor of Manchester, he should be prepared to bring charges,
not only against that person, but against others, now present,
which charges he would substantiate. (Loud calls for Mr.

Roberts.)
Mr. CHAPPELL explained t
exacted from all the officers of t
so, which he signed. After he cams
management did not appear to him and to some of
leagues likely to be profitable, and he proposed an alteration—
Mr. Luwis.—At what period?
Mr. CHAPPELL.—From 1836 to 1837. A discussion toot
place upon it, but no charge was made because they had con-
fidence in the managing directors. No director who was not
a managing director could know the exact state of the bank ;
he could see no account whatever but his own.
. Mr. SANDERS said that imputation and blame had been
cast upon the proprietors for not having searched into these
matters ; but it would be recollected that at the meeting last
year he himself took a prominent part in doing so, being
satisfied, from what he had heard, that the losses the bank
had sustained must have been much greater than the directors
stated. He pressed for a committee of enquiry ; but it met
with the most decided opposition on the part of the directors,
who said they must either have the whole confidence of the
shareholders or none whatever. The statements on that oc-
casion of Mr. Chapple had great weight with him. He (Mr.
Sanders) was sneered at when he hinted that the bad debts
might be £200,000 ; but the event proved that the amount
was infinitely greater.
Mr. CHAPPELL said he was
,guided by the statements of
the other directors, in whoth he had implicit confidence.
How could he do otherwise than place confidence in such
names as the followingl—John Browne. Evan Evans, W.
Birt, E. Burdekin—(oh, oh)--Richard Roberts—(oh, oh)-
- Cooke, Ray, and J.. 8.. Smith? (Hear.) In these
names he had implicit confidence ; and if he could have
spared more money from his business, he should have hi-
vested it in the bank. He had sold out of several concerns
for the sole purpoSe of placing the, money in the bank, and
that would show his confidence in the integrity, honour, and
ability of those gentlemen. (Cheers.)
Mr. SANDERS said, then the directors were highly culpable
in making statements upon their own responsibility which
they did not know to be true from actual investigation.
They had thereby lulled suspicion at a time when such a
great disaster as had befallen them might have been pre-
vented probably. The proprietors; therefore, otizht not to
be accused of being backward in examining. iss regarded
the account of Richard Roberts, he (Mr. Sanders) had
sufficient data to prove that it had been increased consider-
ably since the last annual meeting—a circumstance which
would have been prevented if the committee had been ap-
pointed, for which he (Mr. S.) had moved. He lied some
remarks to make relative to Richard Roberts ; but as that
person was present he would reserve them.
Mr. SAMUEL WALKER moved, and Mr. CURTIS seconded
the resolution—that Mr. Richard Roberts be requested to
enter upon his explanation- forthwith. This resolution was
carried unanimously, amidst cheers and some exhibition of
feeling which the Chairman repressed.
Mr. RICHARD ROBERTS then came forward and delivered
a written address of very great length, which he refused to
furnish to the press. It would occupy, if given at length,
nearly three columns of the Standard. It commenced with
an acknowledgment of the importance of this matter to his
character—that upon the way in which he came out Of the
ordeal depended whether his character was gone and he be-
came a burden to himself, or whether he remained an honest
but an unfortunate man. There were four distinct and seperate
charges made against him, and he should state them in their
broadest outline. Thefirst was, that the managing director pre-
pared and laid before the board of directors a statement of the af-
fairs of the Bank ou the 30th June, 1841, which was presented to
the annual meeting in October, as a true fair account of the
condition of the Bank, knowing at the same time it was false,
and therefore a deceit and wilful imposition, first upon the
credulity and confidence of the directors, and secondly, upon
the credulity and confidence of the shareholders. The second
charge was that at a preliminary meeting of the shareholders,
held at the Clarence Hotel, on the Ist of October anonymous-
ly convened by Mr. S. H. Norris he had made'thc same
statements, knowing them to be false. The third charge
was, that he was indebted to the bank a very large sum, that
he had made use of his station as Managing Director,
to employ to his own benefit very large sums which but for that
circumstance he could not have had, and he thereby become a
plunderer of the funds of the bank. The fourth charge was
that he was one of those directors to whom Mr. Walker com-
municated his opinion of the character and conduct of the
late manager (Burdekin), and that he took no steps to dis-
place him. Besides these four charges there was one other,
rather incidental than direct, which was, that he had made
statements with regard to the prosperity and condition of the
bank calculated to inspire confidence in the value of the
stock, knowing at the same time that such statements were
not true. Mr. Roberts then proceeded to deal with these
charges, contending, in general terms, that he was not liable
to the imputation of wilful fraud or negligence, but only to
errors of judgment ; and that his best energies bad

been devoted to the promotion of the prosperity of t
bank. A document of such great length, and of con
siderable intricacy, and of which we have been refused

f course v

,ot pretend to give ev

r, of Livery

nated as a maniac.
M. J. C. DYER, in relation to some express
Roberts explanation, said that he and the other di

)LLIVANT narrated ti

anve in t

pt going cc

matter

nine

anaging conamittce
d from Heron, and

876 15

IR4I. t

e 31st D,

which they

ier, 1841, it was

:I for the account of 'A

lichard

e from him to the
40 heaV--, hear) ; on

8,822 ; in December, 1811,