VOL. IX.

PUMP COURT.

The Temple Newspaper and Review.

SPECIAL NOTICE.-PUMP COURT will in future be conducted at the City Offices, 37, Walbrook, E. C., where all letters for the Editor, the Publisher, or the Manager must be addressed.

CURRENTE CALAMO

De Lege; de Omnibus Rebus et Quibusdam Aliis.

:0:

THE case against Mr. E. J. M. Alpenburgh, of 47, Haymarket, is not without its redeeming features. He may have sent out circulars of a tempting character, so as to get together his syndicate for Stock Exchange dealings from the tape, but with the formation of the syndicate the dealings were essentially co-operative. As faro players play against the bank, the individuals of the syndicate dealt with Mr. Alpenburgh as representative of the collective whole. This was a method of business which in no way reflects upon any member of the syndicate nor upon Mr. Alpenburgh. The three rooms over the chemist's shop were furnished in a plain, substantial manner; and the situation, which was chosen as contiguous to the clubs, was readily accessible to City members from Charing-cross Station. The plain reception-room contained the ticker of the Exchange Telegraph Company, members on entering, if so inclined, advancing to the tape, and bargaining each in his own way, and without reference to anything set forth in the early circulars. The business-room to the left of the reception-room was only provided with a single chair and a desk, but the wall was well furnished with direct club-house telephones. The consulting-room to the right of the reception-room was not at all luxurious in its appointments. It remains to add that there were no outside clients, business having been restricted to the members of the syndicate; and that while a faro bank will always prosper, the syndicate promoter who plays himself off against the whole body of a syndicate at tape price games will always fail. Whatever the loss of some members of the syndicate, others have made gain, and as for Mr. Alpenburgh, he is believed, to have been cleaned out.

THE vagueness even of scientific knowledge is well illustrated just now in the Strand and in Pall Mall. In the Strand there is being laid down one system of electric lighting, and in Pall Mall another, as if the cell system,

No. 152.

the friction system, and the direct system by the ordinary iron wire were not enough. The Pall Mall system, so far as it is disclosed in the street laying down, presents three distinct bunches of copper strips, each strip two inches wide, isolated and protected in wide cast-iron gutter channels, hermetically sealed with lead; whereas the Strand system carries wires through a series of circular holes, set in lengths of a dry, non-conducting mixture of plaster of Paris and Norway tar. The business men in both thoroughfares would have preferred to have had the respective systems tried elsewhere, even if that elsewhere had been at the bottom of the Atlantic, so destructive of business have the laying down of the connections and the street improvements been. Whether the vestries or the London County Council is to blame for the laggard manner in which the work has been and still continues to be carried on is not suffered to transpire, and therefore it is well to blame both.

ALLIED to the electric lighting vagueness is the uncertainty which still attaches to the material to be used for street paving. The City believes in asphalte, and will have nothing else, although there appears to be more than one asphalte, and also a variety of ways of manipulating asphalte. Pall Mall, Chelsea, and other districts adhere to or have come back to wooden blocks, jointed sometimes with pitch and at other times with cement. The best manner of road-making is thus as yet unknown, the primary consideration nowadays being to prevent horsefalling. While towards this end the road-maker is fertile in invention, and the vestries are open to be fooled into anything, another class of inventors have the horse in hand with inventions for his feet. One invention prevents slipping by allowing the frog of the horse's foot to grow, and by having the travel of the foot borne by the frog. Next there are inventors of various forms of rubber shoes for horses; and last there are inventions of protruding nails and spikes and cottars. Wherefore this diversity of opinion on such everyday affairs? Have we too much or too little technical knowledge?

THERE is a remarkable misapprehension as to the classes who leave London in holiday and vacation periods. The lawyers go because there is nothing for them to do. Office clerks, boys, and shopmen go also, but there the line may be fairly drawn, Peers and Commons being so few numerically that no notice may be taken of them. London men of business as a class remain in town. At different

hours throughout the day there are regular gatherings within the Royal Exchange, now the metal trade, next the provision trade, after them the ship-brokers and others, and as a wind-up the bill-brokers and the merchants. These regular gatherings are as well attended daily as if we were still in midsummer. One fails also to miss from his post a single London bank manager, and with the exception of a day or two off, Stock Exchange men are to be found when wanted. Mincing Lane was never more full, nor Mark Lane, nor the Baltic. In short, that London goes out of town is an error. It does not; it sticks to its post. Business is much too serious an affair to be permitted to shift for itself. Dr. Johnson's proverb, "Mind your shop, and your shop will mind you," is apparently never absent from the London commercial mind. Still, it would be risky to attempt rowing against the current of opinion by attempting to push forward enterprises of pith and moment at the present time. Next month is the generally accepted time, and presently it will be with us to reflect in large measure, be it hoped, the prosperity now being enjoyed in all the

industries except that of cotton. For some reason or other cotton stands out in the cold in Lancashire, while side by side with it some Lancashire steel and iron works are engaged night and day, and also on Sunday.

Ir is with much regret that we have to record the sudden death of Mr. J. Bottomley Firth, M.P. for Dundee. The deceased gentleman was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in Midsummer, 1866, and was a member of the North-Eastern Circuit. Our contemporary, the Star, in its issue of last Thursday, rightly estimates the character of this gentleman. There were a few people in the Temple who tried to make out that he was unpopular, etc., etc., but the only ground we could ever discover for this was that he did not choose to be hail fellow well met with everyone he chanced to meet in Hall. Those who knew Mr. Firth-and the writer knew him well-can testify that he was a loyal and kind-hearted man. His labours in the cause of Municipal Reform made for him many enemies, undoubtedly, but it would be difficult to conceive of any man engaged in a work of the kind who could have done it more temperately, though to be sure he was firm. By Mr. Firth's death the vice-chairmanship of the County Council is vacant. We shall all know better what we have lost when we come to choose his successor.

THE Record Office has lost a valuable officer in Mr. W. D. Selby, whose death from typhoid fever took place last week. It is said that to the insanitary condition of the office is due the death of this able and worthy gentleman. If this is so, it is time that this should be remedied. The help that he has always afforded this journal whenever we have had to make searches in his office, was of a nature that none but a skilled officer could have afforded, and the trouble he would take was unlimited.-R.I.P.

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION.

THE Metropolitan Police Acts contain many provisions conferring powers upon the police and on metropolitan police magistrates which are unknown outside the area of the metropolitan police district. One of these provisions is that which relates to what is called unlawful possession, and it may interest many of our readers to have in the compass of an article the sections of the Acts and the cases decided with reference to this subject.

The 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 66, provides that any constable may stop, search, and detain any vessel, boat, cart, or carriage, in or upon which there shall be reason to suspect that anything stolen or unlawfully obtained may be found, and also any person who may be reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner anything stolen or unlawfully obtained. The 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71, s. 24, provides that every person who shall be brought before any of the said (metropolitan police) magistrates, charged with having in his possession or conveying in any manner anything which may be reasonably suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained, and who shall not give an account to the satisfaction of euch magistrate how he came by the same, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to a penalty of not more than £5, or, in the discretion of the magistrate, may be imprisoned for any time not exceeding two calendar months. The following cases, which have been decided with reference to these two sections, sufficiently indicate the difficulties connected with their construction.

The earliest case which we have been able to find is that of Sullivan v. Richards, 30 J.P. 118, decided in 1866. In that case, on a steamer arriving at its destination, S., a passenger, told a porter to take up a box which he said belonged to him, but which was in reality the property of another passenger. S. directed the porter to take it ashore, and he did so, S. accompanying him. The porter was stopped while carrying the box, and S. was charged under 2 and 3 Vic. c. 71, s. 24, with unlawful possession of the box. The magistrate convicted S., who appealed on the ground that the section required the property to be found in the manual possession of the person charged; but the court upheld the conviction. This case requires

no comment, for it is difficult to understand how such a contention could seriously be argued.

may

The next case in order of date is Hadley v. Perks, L. R. 1 Q. B. 444; 30 J. P., 485, decided in 1866. In that case the defendants were charged with unlawful possession of a number of sacks which were found in their mills, and the magistrate convicted the defendants. But on a case stated for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench, that court held that the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71, s. 24, is supplemental only to 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 66, and consequently that the former section applies only to possession in the streets, and not to possession in a house. The grounds of the decision be thus stated: It is no offence at common law, nor is it an offence under any statute other than 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 66, to have in one's possession property suspected of being stolen. The common law offence is to have in one's possession with a guilty knowledge things actually stolen. Consequently, a person can only be charged before a magistrate with having in his possession things suspected of being stolen in cases where he may properly be brought before the magistrate, i.e., in cases where a constable may arrest under 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 66. The last-mentioned section is obviously limited to cases where the property which is suspected of being stolen is in course of transit. So that the offence of having in one's possession or conveying applies only to having or conveying in the streets. This view is confirmed by 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s 25, which empowers a magistrate to grant a warrant for searching any house in which there is reasonable ground for suspecting that anything stolen or unlawfully obtained is concealed; and by section 26, which enacts that the Occupier may be convicted if it shall appear to the magistrate that he had possession of such thing, and had reasonable cause to believe the same to have been stolen or unlawfully obtained. There is, therefore, express provision for the seizing of goods in a house and for the punishment of persons found in possession of them, and it is to be inferred that section 24 does not apply to such cases. At the conclusion of his judgment, Blackburn, J., added: "There can be no doubt whatever that, provided have been no defence to say that the defendants had been the facts would have justified a summary arrest, it would brought before a magistrate by a summons in lieu of having been arrested, and that the words of section 24 did not apply to persons 'brought' by virtue of a summons. They clearly do so apply." The importance of this dictum will presently appear.

The next case is that of Reg. v. Whitley, 31 J. P. 565, decided in 1867. In that case the defendant was a marine store dealer, and he was convicted of having in his possession certain lead suspected to be stolen. The lead was found in his shop. The Court of Queen's Bench, following Hadley v. Perks, held that the conviction was wrong. No new point was decided in this case.

The next case is Reg. v. Fisher, 39 J. P. 612, decided in 1875. The defendant was seen carrying goods. A constable, who suspected that the goods had been unlawfully obtained, followed him till he reached his own house, which he entered. The constable followed him into the house and arrested him. It was contended, on behalf of the defendant, that when the man got into the house section 24 ceased to have any application; but the court held that the offence was complete while the defendant was in the street, and that it made no difference that he managed to get into a house before being arrested.

At the Middlesex Sessions on Saturday last a new point was decided upon the appeal of a defendant, who was convicted under the following circumstances:-The appellant was said to have been seen coming out of the gates of one of the London docks having a sack in his possession. At the gates he handed the sack over to another person, who deposited it as if it were a sample of grain in the box or office of the dock constable. It was alleged that this sack was afterwards found to contain fowls which had been stolen from a ship in the docks. Both the men were charged with stealing the fowls, but the magistrate only convicted the appellant of unlawful possession. It was contended that, assuming all the alleged facts to be true, the case was not within the statute. The appellant was not arrested while "having or conveying" the fowls, nor was he summoned, and he was, in fact, "brought " before the magistrate upon another charge, having been

arrested on that charge

some six or seven hours after the sack had been left in the constable's box. But the chairman, Sir P. H. Edlin, Q.C., held that the magistrate had jurisdiction. It was clear, from the judgment of Blackburn, J., in Hadley v. Perks, already quoted, that it was not necessary for a defendant to be arrested in the act of "having or conveying." He might have been summoned after the act was complete if he might have been arrested at the time. And though he was before the magistrate on a charge of larceny, yet, in the words of Lopes, J., in Reg. v. Hughes, 4 Q. B. D. 622, "whether the defendant was summoned, brought by warrant, came voluntarily, was brought by force or under an illegal warrant is immaterial; being before the justices, however brought there, the justices, if they have jurisdiction in respect of time and place over the offence, are competent to entertain the charge." The point of law was therefore decided against the appellant, but it is right to add that after hearing the evidence on both sides the court quashed the conviction on the merits.

The conclusion to which the foregoing cases lead may be thus stated: (1) The person charged must be found in a street having in his possession or conveying property suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained; (2) it is not sufficient if the property is found in a house, but the person charged may be followed into a house and arrested there; (3) the property need not be in manual possession of the person charged, if it is being carried for him by a servant or agent; (4) the magistrate has jurisdiction to convict, though the person charged was not arrested, provided that the circumstances were such as would have justified his arrest.-Justice of the Peace.

NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1889.
CHAPTER VI.

An Act to amend the Law relating to the National Debt.
[31st May, 1889.

Be it enacted, &c. :

1. Amount of permanent annual charge for National Debt.] The amount of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt during the current and every subsequent financial year shall be the sum of twenty-five million pounds, and "twentyfive" shall be substituted for "twenty-six" in section 1 of the Sinking Fund Act, 1875 [38 and 39 Vict. c. 43], as amended by section two of the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887 [50 and 51 Vict. c. 16].

2. Power to exchange Two and Three-quarters per Cent. stock created under 47 and 48 Vict. c. 23.] Any holder of Two and Three-quarters per Cent. stock created under the National Debt (Conversion of Stock) Act, 1884, may, by assent signified in the prescribed manner, exchange his said stock for an equal nominal amount of Two and Three-quarters per Cent. Consolidated stock, created in pursuance of the National Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888, or the National Debt Redemption Act, 1889, and thereupon the same provisions shall apply as if the exchange had been effected in pursuance of either of those Acts.

3. Provision as to stock in court and stock belonging to savings bank depositors.] Whereas by section twelve of the National Debt Redemption Act, 1889, the Treasury have power to make regulations with respect to the interest on money payable on redemption of stock in court and of stock invested on behalf of depositors in Trustee or Post Office savings banks, and by reason of the difficulty of communicating with the persons interested in such stock it is expedient to make further provision with respect to the money payable on redemption thereof; be it therefore enacted as follows:

(1) The consent required under the said section may be given in the case of stock in court by the Lord Chancellor, and in the case of stock invested on behalf of depositors as aforesaid by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, unless, in either case, the person to whom the dividends on the stock are for the time being payable signifies dissent in the manner and within the time required by the regulations.

(2) The provision contained in section 3, sub-section (1) (b), of the Savings Bank Act, 1880 [43 & 44 Vic. c. 36], shall not apply in the case of the re-investment of money payable on redemption of any stock invested on behalf of depositors as aforesaid, and no commission shall be charged on any such re-investment.

(3) Where any money payable on redemption of any stock to which this section applies, remains on the fifth day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety credited in the books of the Paymaster-General or of the Commissioners for the Reduction or the National Debt, that money shall as from that day bear interest at the rate of

two and three-quarters per centum per annum, payable at such times as the Treasury by regulations direct out of the Consolidated Fund as part of the permanent annua charge for the National Debt.

(4) This section shall be construed and have effect as part of the National Redemption Act, 1889 [52 & 53 Vic. c. 4]. 4. Amendment of law as to payment of dividends on stock.] (1.) The Banks of England and Ireland respectively may from time to time, with the concurrence of the Treasury, make regulations for the payment of dividends on stock either by sending warrants through the post, or by payment through a banker, or by payment at a country branch.

(2.) Where a dividend warrant is sent by post in accordance with any such regulations, the posting of the letter containing the warrant, addressed in the manner prescribed by the regulations, shall, as respects the liability of the Bank, be equivalent to the delivery of the warrant to the stockholder.

(3.) Any arrangements made before the passing of this Act for the payment of dividends by warrants sent through the post shall continue, unless and until altered by regulations made after the passing of this Act in pursuance of this section.

(4.) Where two or more persons are registered as joint holders of stock, any one of those persons may give an effectual receipt dividend on the stock unless notice to the contrary has any been given to the bank by any other of the holders.

for

(5.) Where two or more persons have given a letter or power of attorney for the receipt of dividends on stock, and one of them becomes of unsound mind, the letter or power shall not thereby be made void.

(6.) This section shall apply to all stock of any company or corporation, funds, or annuities, transferable in the books of the Bank of England or of Ireland.

(7.) This section shall be construed and have effect as part of the National Debt Act, 1870 [33 and 34 Vict. c. 71].

5. Amendment of law as to signature of Exchequer and Treasury bills.] After the passing of this Act, Exchequer bills, Exchequer bonds, and Treasury bills shall bear the name of one of the secretaries for the time being to the Treasury, and that name may be impressed or affixed by machinery or otherwise in such manner as the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury from time to time direct by regulations to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

6. Repeal.] The Acts specified in the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent appearing in the third column of that schedule, without prejudice to anything done or liability incurred under any enactment hereby repealed.

7. Short title.] This Act may be cited as the National Debt Act, 1889.

SCHEDULE.

PUMP COURT.

were formed under the best conditions of the time, with the result that the port of London became the pride of

CITY OFFICES, 37, WALBROOK, E.C.

SEPTEMBER 11, 1889.

Pro Lege.

ECONOMICAL POSITION OF THE DOCK

DIRECTORS.

THE dock directors are getting what is known as hard measure. They are being judged by a standard which is not their own, although their own standard may fairly claim as much consideration as the one by which they are judged. It is alleged against them that the labour conditions asserted by them are of a nature that labour cannot live by; they reply that the conditions are not of yesterday, that they have not been arbitrarily changed to the disadvantage of labour, and, moreover, that they are those on which the dock shareholders bought into the docks as an investment. Further, it is alleged that the original outlays on the docks were extravagant, and that the subsequent policy of their management has been wasteful; and, therefore, that the policy of the directors is an infliction on labour of the injustice of requiring it to provide a dividend on that waste and that extravagance. To this it is rejoined, that if the action of the dock management is to be questioned, so may the action of labour; and accordingly these questions may be asked of the dockers: Why are you under the encumbrance of marriage, which obviously keeps you down, and why have you suffered yourselves to make such shipwreck of your lives that you must first seek dock employment? And next, that when you have found it, you should have the temerity to reject it? In short, blame the directors, and they in turn may, if fairplay is to rule, blame you. The business of the docks, like labour itself as a business, is to make money; failing to make money up to the average rate, it obviously is a defensible position to place the dispute on its lowest ground, that dock labour should be paid down under the average rate. On its higher ground an issue is raised on which jurists will agree; in other words, it brings us back to the allegations of waste and extravagance.

The dock properties are in a position which runs on all fours with an encumbered estate in Ireland. When the Irish estate was purchased, wheat per imperial quarter was not 30s., but 60s.; and when the construction of these docks was set about, it was not contemplated by those who found the money that in the present year of grace an attempt would be made to set aside what may be termed the franchises; in other words, the rights. Had such a proceeding been as much as conjectured as a possibility, it is safe to believe that the money would not have been provided; and as a consequence the port of London might have long remained an exposed trade-repelling river estuary. But there being no such anticipation, the docks

borne support for cargo-laden ships; for cargoes storage; for importers warrants upon which money might be raised; and for merchants the privilege of sampling, bottling, blending, repacking, and even of tasting, as visitors to the wine vaults well know. Nay, more; has not the port of London profited in a marked degree, in comparison with Liverpool and Glasgow, by its superior dock accommodation for the reception and accumulation of merchandise for export? In short, have not the docks been largely contributory to the growth of London? And what now is the return? The outlays which have been so largely for the common good are denounced as extravagance and waste; as so indefensible and monstrous that no return should be received from them. So to-day fares the Irish landowner. With the land he got its burdens or charges; and now, when the returns, as rent, are insufficient to meet these charges, he is repudiated as a vampire; he is anathematised as crushing life and hope out of Irish labour, after the manner of the London dock directors. Thus ignorance makes the same unwarrantable assault on both; and, reasoning in its own way, sets at naught as matter of course whatever at the moment seems to be in conflict with the selfishness and the prejudice of labour.

on

What did the dock directors get for their money? We will not beat about the bush, but will at once admit that they got certain monopolies. In consideration for the docks, as per schedule to be provided, there hereafter were to be no competing docks in their neighbourhood, as in Ratcliff or the Commercial-road; certain tolls were to be charged; certain rates for storage were to be allowed. There was to be a lien with right of sale for such rates and tolls, in default of reimbursement for moneys advanced; in respect of cargo freight or ships, exceptional powers were conferred, and generally it was provided that the docks should frame regulations which those using the docks as shipowners, merchants, or labourers should without appeal be bound by. So in effect run the powers under which money was sought and found for investment in the docks. The privileges were the consideration for the money, and unless utter lawlessness is now to be avowed, those privileges must be upheld until at least annulled by compensatory legislation. Temple Bar was found to be inconvenient to street traffic, and was removed; and similarly the franchises of the docks may be inconvenient, but those franchises can no more be surrendered as a gift to dock labourers, merchants, and shipowners, than can the various charges Irish lands, without compensation, be given up to conciliate and make happy the Irish tenant farmer. Bad as the bargain of the docks has been to their proprietors, the misfortune has followed legitimately in the ordinary course of trade; now, by clamour and subscriptions and donations to support demands which would make that bad worse, and virtually deprive the dock proprietors of their property, is to give effect to the Communism which all of us affect to dread. Why there is no counter movement in support of property now wrongfully assailed is explicable as only the effect of an emotional wave which for the moment has submerged the judgment. It is not for the dock proprietors to set socially right the East-end of London nor does it seem to be the duty of the East-end parishes. Parliament even hesitates. Under the circumstances, and until remedial legislation has made provision for the appalling want and misery which prevails among the dock labourer class, the only rational view which can be taken of the dock's economical position is that for the present the docks furnish a system of outdoor relief which in many respects is superior to that of the workhouse, but which, besides being morally deficient, is calculated to be subversive of social order. The dock directors are not to blame, and it seems hitherto to have been overlooked that the evil is deep-seated and irremediable even by the payment of another penny. The effect of another penny would be to attract a new swarthy class from the provinces, who would be likely by their better intelligence and muscle to relegate to idleness and want the class who are now on strike. Undoubtedly, as affirmed by Lord Randolph Churchill, the social question is the question of questions of our time.

THE LONDON AND WESTMINSTER BANK.

We are all proud of the London and Westminster Bank, so vast are its engagements to the public, and so steadily have those engagements grown since 1834, when the business was established. It is the Great Eastern steamship of joint stock banking; the Atlantic greyhound of modern finance. In 1866, by lending all its spare notes daily to the Bank of England for a month, it may be said to have kept the Bank of England out of the hands of a receiver, and to have preserved the public credit. The services of the London and Westminster Bank in these eminent particulars do not, however, confer on it immunity from criticism; nor probably at any period of its history would its directors have desired such immunity. On the contrary, the presumption is, that whatever hitherto there may have been of criticism has on the whole been laughed at as the ridiculous judgments of half-truths. Criticism in front of the footlights and criticism behind them, the one having communication with trap-doors and dressingrooms, scene-shifters and limelight operators, and the other possessed only of the voice, the grimaces, and the posturings of the actors, are necessarily different in character and force. We make no pretension to special knowledge of the affairs of the London and Westminster Bank; what we know the public at large also knows. We accept as facts what has been set forth in the balancesheet for the half-year ending the 30th June, 1889, and we have neither the intention nor the inclination to step outside of the record.

The paid-up sum constituting the working capitalGerman, French, Italian, American, and British political economy of the advanced modern type which takes cognisance of rights or of credit and labour as essential factors, regarding only as capital that which is in active productive use-stands thus: :

This unquestionably is an impressive sum, one which is a puzzle to the imagination; but it is also one which suggests questioning. Were we to ask the present form of this active capital, we should be told that £2,953,465 is in cash in hand and at the Bank of England; and, as for the balance, that it exists in bills of exchange and in Government and other securities. To this we should answer: Here there is only an appearance of candour, but of candour itself there is none. There is here a concealment of what is required from the Bank of England by statute, namely, the sum in gold and notes which is actually in hand. This information the Bank of England gives weekly, whereas the London and Westminster Bank, in common with the other London joint stock banks, withholds it. We protest against the concealment being continued; and of the many changes which press for the attention of Parliament this one is really urgent-that, as the Bank of England is required to make weekly statements of its gold and notes in hand, so the London joint stock and all other banks in Great Britain and Ireland should be required to do the same. To this the bankers would offer the most strenuous opposition; they would speak of it as a grandmotherly proposal, which should be scouted by all right-minded persons. Bosh! When the timidity is overcome which invests banking with the sanctity of the Thirty-nine Articles, this information and that further information to which we next turn will be insisted on in the best interests of the banks themselves, as well as of the general public.

The further information we desire is detail about this paid-up and reserve capital of the London and Westminster Bank. How much of the £4,455,620 is really capital in the modern sense, £2,953,465 only being in cash in hand and at the Bank of England? We make bold to state-and if the statement needs endorsement it will be forthcoming from no less a person than the Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge-that for the time being the sole active capital of the London and Westminster Bank is the money in its till, its other capital being practically as dormant as its possessions in brick and mortar. Bluntly, what has the London and Westminster Bank in its till? If this is plain talk, it also is business talk. The London and Westminster Bank has in

its hands the fortunes of a goodly number of its 7,500 proprietors, and heaven knows also of how many socalled-we repeat the phrase-so-called, depositors. Why should these proprietors, and these so-called depositors, should it not be told to them straight out on what be led by the nose in this matter of capital? Why sum the business of the bank is run? and further, why should it not be told them what the nature of that sum is; whether in the current coin of the realm, whether in Bank of England notes, or whether and to what extent in both? So far as that sum is in Bank of England notes, we take this objection to it, which is a purely commercial one, that such notes cannot be at the same time the proprietors' capital of the Bank of England and also the proprietors' capital of the London and Westminster Bank. As asserted by the Cambridge Professor of Political Economy:

"It depends on this principle whether the capital of the Bank of England and of almost every other joint stock bank is a solid reality or mere moonshine." The London and Westminster Bank, as the user of Bank of England notes for the purpose of its business, is in the position of the user of a London cab. The user of a cab has the same transient right of ownership as the holder of a Bank of England note; and the user of a cab is no more entitled to say that the cab is his capital in the Roman Law sense of Dominus, than is the London and Westminster Bank entitled to say in the same sense that its Bank of England notes are its capital. If so much of the original capital of the London and Westminster Bank was created in Bank of England notes, then we have only to say that it ismoonshine. Many properties are claimed for capital, but none can excel in absurdity what is implied here-that what in the first instance forms the capital of the Bank of England may, by the sleight-of-hand of a cheque-book, without diminution of the capital of the Bank of England, constitute at the same time the capital of the London and Westminster Bank. We all of us accept as truth that the universe was created out of nothing, and there is too much reason to believe that the miracle of the Creator has been somewhat widely repeated by the banker. We direct attention to the subject as, now that it has been publicly discussed before the chief of sinners, the Scotch bankers in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, it cannot well be hushed up. Banking is the one thing in which there has been no advance towards consolidation and strength, its sole development being in the recklessness implied in the creation of so-called deposits to the extent of £800,000,000, for the protection and recovery of which there is only the reserve at the Bank of England, which, at last Wednesday's make up, was £12,083,866 in notes and coin.

THE AUCTION MART.

MESSRS. BRODIE, TIMBS AND BAKER will shortly offer part interests in various properties situated in George-yard, Lombard-street. The locality is excellent, lying as it does between Lombard-street and Cornhill, but to its misfortune a City club-house was erected which, Liberal first and Conservative last, came to the bad end which awaits turncoats; its windows became grimy with City smoke and dirt, and with glass broken here and there, the general appearance was dilapidated and woebegone. But one day, to its relief and exhilaration, Count Bismarck lunched in the corner coffee-house, and on casting his eyes upward to form an opinion about the future of the weather, the sudden inspiration came to him that the political turncoat building would come in for the reconstruction of the Imperial German Bank of London. Negotiations ensued, and for many months workmen have been engaged internally and externally upon the structure in its transformation to banking purposes. Presently the Imperial German Bank of London will take possession, and it comes to stay. George-yard property will therefore soon recover from the gloom which club-house failures have cast upon it, and the auctioneers accordingly are justified in inviting the attention of trustees, solicitors, and others to the proposed sale, which is set down for some day next month. The first sale on the list is a thirty-sixth share of a 72 years' unexpired term, the tenants in possession being Messrs. Barclay, Bevan, and Company. The tenants under the other thirty-sixth share interests are the British Gas Light Company, Limited,