---
Title: Notebook “Trade and Finance 1868”. VI. The Disclosures of the Official Assignee Edwards in the Overend and Gurney Inquiry and the Financial Column, January to March 1869
Description: Newspaper cuttings in the notebook “Trade and Finance 1868”: the Daily News report of January 25, 1869 on the sitting of January 23 of the inquiry against the directors of Overend, Gurney and Co. (Limited), with the examination of the official assignee Edwards and the speeches for the defence; the “Trade and Finance” column on the London joint stock banks and on English and Belgian railway fares; and the trade statistics for 1868.
Author: Karl Marx
Date: 1869-01
URL: https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/originales/1869%20Notebook%20%E2%80%9CTrade%20and%20Finance%201868%E2%80%9D.%20VI.%20The%20Disclosures%20of%20the%20Official%20Assignee%20Edwards%20in%20the%20Overend%20and%20Gurney%20Inquiry%20and%20the%20Financial%20Column%2C%20January%20to%20March%201869
---


*Newspaper cuttings, mostly from the Daily News, cut out and pasted in for Karl Marx by his daughter Jenny Marx in the notebook “Trade and Finance 1868”, London, 1868-1869 (IISG, Amsterdam, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Papers, P 1). Text from MEGAdigital (MEGA² IV/19), without the editorial apparatus; words in square brackets are missing from the cuttings and supplied by the MEGA editors.[^lic] [Traducción al español](https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/1869%20Cuaderno%20%C2%ABTrade%20and%20Finance%201868%C2%BB.%20VI.%20Las%20revelaciones%20del%20s%C3%ADndico%20Edwards%20en%20el%20proceso%20Overend-Gurney%20y%20la%20cr%C3%B3nica%20financiera%20de%20enero-marzo%20de%201869)*

#### OVEREND AND GURNEY PROSECUTION.

##### EXTRAORDINARY DISCLOSURES.

The inquiry into the charge of conspiracy brought against the late directors of this company was resumed on Saturday morning at the Guildhall before the Lord Mayor and Alderman Sir T. Gabriel.

On the opening of the court the witness, Mr. E. W. Edwards, was called, and his examination in chief proceeded with.

Mr. Lewis—Have you had an opportunity of looking at the books and seeing what was done in 1864?—Yes, and I have also seen Mr. Boyce on the matter. I have made a tabular statement of what I have done in several years. I do not find any entry in the book of what was done in 1864.

What was done by you for Overend, Gurney, and Co. during that year?—In that year, up to July, the Atlantic was being worked, but I am not able to refresh my memory from anything I can find in the book.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—If books are referred to it is very desirable to have them produced, and not that the witness should speak from memoranda on bits of paper.

The Lord Mayor—I thought I saw an entry in the book yesterday.

Witness—No. This, my lord (producing a paper), is the agreement.

The paper being handed to Mr. Oke, that gentleman asked in whose writing the signature was.

Witness—David Ward Chapman’s.

Mr Serjeant Ballantine—I have no objection to the agreement being read, but it is not signed by any of the defendants.

The Lord Mayor—I need not tell you that a letter of agreement between a firm and a gentleman employed does not require the individual signatures of the partners.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine reminded his lordship that that rule did not apply in a criminal case.

The Lord Mayor—The agreement is produced because I asked for it yesterday, merely to show how is was that he acted for Overend and Gurney. It must be taken in connexion with the facts sworn to by the witness, and he has sworn that he saw several of the defendants on the matter.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine asked his lordship to take a note of his objection, because there were transactions between the gentleman signing the agreement and Mr. Edwards which he could not admit to be binding on the defendants.

The Lord Mayor—Certainly.

The agreement was then put in and read by Mr. Oke as follows:

“65. Lombard-street, 17th November, 1862.

“Dear Sir,—In consideration of your agreeing to continue to act for us in all matters in which we may ask for your advice and assistance, we hereby agree to pay you the sum of 5,000l. per annum for five years, to commence the 1st day of January, 1863, and to terminate on the 1st of January, 1868.”

The Lord Mayor—I understood Mr. Edwards to state yesterday that the agreement commenced prior to the year 1859, and that he received 5,000l. a year up to the period of 1862; that in the year 1865 he received this 20,000l., being two years’ payments for the two years prior to January, 1865, and, for two years subsequently to that year, for work which was to be done.

Examination resumed—It does not appear definitely in the book what was done in 1864, but it shows that there were transactions, because it refers to Millwall. The entry is “Re Millwall estimated receipts for three months end-ing October 31, 1864.” I gather from that entry that I was consulted in 1864. I was consulted by Mr. John Henry Gurney, but I don’t recollect whether I was consulted by the other directors or not. I generally conversed with Mr. J. H. Gurney on the matters in which I was engaged. I have no doubt it was the question of making advances on which I was consulted. That is an entry of requirements, is it not?

Mr. Lewis—It is an estimate of profits.

Witness—No; an estimate of receipts, not profits. I am speaking almost from ideas, not from recollection.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—I hope your lordship will take a note of that.

The Lord Mayor—You may depend upon it that nothing will be entered upon the depositions from the ideas or imagination of the witness. You have no recollection of any business you did in 1864?

Witness—Not of actual business.

Mr. Lewis—Well, then, have you any recollection of any conversations with any of the defendants in 1864?—No positive recollections.

In 1863?—I have no positive recollection of any business on which I was consulted in 1863.

Does not the book show?—I have not seen it.

The book was handed to the witness.

The Lord Mayor—Now, refresh your memory by considering the different estates you were connected with.

Witness—I have put down in a tabular from the estates with which I was connected, and, as far as I can recollect, the particular years.

Mr. Lewis—Let me see if I can remind you. Was there an arbitration between Overend, Gurney, and Co. and Mr. Lever?—No.

Were you not appointed umpire?—No.

Were not Messrs. Turquand and Harding appointed arbitrators?—No, that was an arbitration between Lascaridi and Lever. It was in reference to accounts between Lever and Lascaridi.

In what year were you appointed umpire?—I have not the date.

What was it about?—No answer.

This is a matter of serious moment to Overend, Gurney, and Co. You were receiving 5,000l. a year when you were appointed an umpire to decide this matter?—I was.

What was it about?—The accounts between Lascaridi and Lever.

Were Overend and Gurney interested in it, yes or no?—They were interested in the result, because I think both Lascaridi and Lever were indebted to Overend, Gurney, and Co. They were not examined before me, nor was Mr. Boyce. There was not to my knowledge a bill filed in Chancery by Overend, Gurney, and Co. about that matter. I do not recollect making an affidavit in reference to those accounts in 1863.

Sir T. Gabriel—It is exceedingly unfortunate that you cannot recollect anything of this transaction. You cannot expect that we can take your answer that you do not recollect anything.

Witness—I have a very bad memory for dates. (Laughter.)

Mr. Lewis—Have you been an accountant?

Witness—Yes.

In partnership with Mr. Turquand?—Yes.

Can you tell us what you did in 1863 and 1864, for Messrs. Overend and Gurney?—No, I cannot tell you definitely what I did in these matters.

Was not Mr. Pearson’s matter in 1863 and 1864?—No, in 1862 and 1863.

Overend and Gurneys lost a large sum by him?—Yes, but I do not recollect the amount.

Was it in the year 1861 that you were employed in reference to this matter?—I cannot say without reference to the books.

Cannot you tell us whether it was within two years of the appointment by which you had a salary of 5,000l. a year?—No, I have no recollection.

Was it in the year 1866?—I cannot say.

Can you give us any date between 1860 and 1866?—No.

Did you apply for the auditorship of the Galway Company?—If I did, it was in 1857 or 1858.

Sir T. Gabriel—You do not answer the question.

Witness—I believe I did.

Mr. Lewis—What were the estates which were being dealt with in 1863?—There were then going on the Atlantic Mail Company, the East India Company, the business of Zenos, the business of Manuel, the business of Pearson, the business of Howard, the business of John Scott Russell, and the business of J. C. Mare.

You were the advisers of the Messrs. Overend and Gurney in all those matters?—I was.

What was the last communication you made to the Messrs. Overend and Gurney with respect to the Millwall Iron Works?—I have no recollection; I never discussed the totals with them.

The Atlantic Mail Company, at the period of its winding-up, owed the Messrs. Overend and Gurney 800,000l. Can you state what was your last conversation with them upon that subject?—I have not the slightest recollection.

What were you doing then?—I simply communicated to them what took place.

Do you not recollect speaking to them about it after you had been watching it for eight years?—I do not recollect any particular conversation.

Then what were you doing for your 5,000l. a year?—I simply communicated to them from time to time what took place at the board.

But did you not have any conversation as to the loss of the 800,000l. odd?—No.

You knew that their indebtedness was becoming greater?—Yes.

That you also mentioned to the defendants?—Yes.

And you informed them?—Yes.

And the Millwall Iron Works?—Yes. I received some information; in the first place, from Mr. Mare, and afterwards from Mr. O’Beirne, who managed the Millwall Iron Works.

You were going to mention that you had a discussion with Mr. Birkbeck in 1864.—That was not the cause of my ceasing to act for them. I had a difference with Mr. Birkbeck which made matters unpleasant.

Tell us what took place between you and Mr. Birkbeck.—I really forget. (Laughter.) As far as I recollect Mr. Birkbeck, in rather coarse terms, accused me of having been the cause of some particular loss; but what loss it was I do not recollect. (Laughter.)

The Lord Mayor—Really try to refresh your memory. Was it the loss by Mr. Pearson?

Witness—No.

The Lord Mayor—I believe you received a present from Mr. Pearson on account of the admirable way in which you had conducted that estate?

Witness—No. I received a certain sum as a commission for ships purchased by Mr. Pearson from Overend and Gurney.

What was the amount?—2,000l.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—What account was that?

The Lord Mayor—Mr. Pearson’s, by whom Overend, Gurney, and Co. lost 36,000l.

Mr. Lewis—Then do I take it that you received 2,000l. as a commission on a transaction between Overend and Gurney and Mr. Pearson?—Yes.

What was it?—For negotiating the sale of two ships.

From whom and to whom?—From Overend and Gurneys to Pearson.

In what year?—1861.

You were then receiving 5,000l. a year from Overend and Gurneys, and you received 2,000l. from Pearson. You were acting, then, for Pearson.—No, Overend and Gurneys.

The Lord Mayor—Now, I believe, Mr. Edwards, that was not the only occasion on which your services were recognised by the parties with whom Messrs. Overend and Gurney were dealing. (No answer.)

Did you receive anything from Mr. Mare?—Never.

From Zenos?—Mr. Zenos gave me a salary of 500l. a year. (Laughter.) It only lasted for six months.

Sir T. Gabriel—What ended the salary?

Witness—Because Messrs. Carr and Hoare took the business over.

Sir T. Gabriel—And they did not take you over with it?

Witness—No.

The Lord Mayor—Now, I believe that that was not the only recognition, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Zenos gave you for services you rendered him?

Witness—I think I received no other.

The Lord Mayor—Why, did he not give you a yacht?

Witness—Yes, but that was not for services rendered. (A laugh.) The Lord Mayor—Well, then, it was a friendly gift?

Witness—Yes.

Mr. Lewis—Was it a steam yacht?—Yes.

Mr. Lewis—Belonging to the Oriental Steam Packet Company? (A laugh.)—No.

Of what tonnage?—Twenty-five tons.

Sir T. Gabriel—Are you sure it was not fifty tons? (A laugh.)—Yes, quite sure.

Mr. Lewis—Now take the case of Lascaridi and Lever. What did you receive as umpire?—Nothing.

The Lord Mayor—I think you had better draw a little on your recollection again, Mr Edwards. (A laugh.)

Mr. Lewis—Yes. You cannot make it worse in any case? Take the case of Lascaridi first?—I do not recollect receiving anything.

Or Lever?—Nothing from Lever.

Will you swear that you received nothing?—No, I will not swear, because my recollection fails me. (A laugh.) My impression is that I received nothing except my salary as umpire.

How much was that?—300l.

From whom?—From Mr. Turnquand.

The Lord Mayor—Now that was an important transaction, and no doubt you had a good deal of trouble with it. What is the total sum you received altogether in connection with it?—My impression is that I never received a penny either from Mr. Lascaridi or from Mr. Lever.

Mr. Lewis—Then will you swear that you received nothing beyond the 300l.?—I will not swear.

Nothing from anybody in that respect?—My strong impression is that I received nothing.

May you have received something and forgotten it?—I might. (A laugh.)

How much may you have forgotten?—I cannot say. (A laugh.) If I ever received anything I have forgotten it.

Now take the case of the Millwall Iron Works, there were commissions and advances made by Overend and Gurney. How much did you receive?

Witness—Nothing whatever. If I did my memory has entirely failed me. (A laugh.) I do not recollect ever having received a penny commission.

The Lord Mayor—Surely you must be prepared to say yes or no, or to swear whether you received any money or not in connection wit the Millwall Company?

Witness (after a pause)—I have no such recollection. (A laugh.) The Lord Mayor—But will you not swear that you did not receive any?

Witness—No, I will not.

And you may have forgotten it?

Witness—I may.

Will you swear that you did not receive 10,000l.?—I certainly did not.

Or 5,000l.—I do not recollect ever having a penny.

Will you swear, sir, that you did not receive 5,000l.?—I do not like to swear positively to anything. (A laugh.)

Why not?—Simply because my memory is an entire blank on the subject. (A laugh.)

Did you keep a banking account?—Two; one with the London and Westminster, and one with Robarts, Lubbock, and Co.

Mr. Lewis—And you will not swear that you did not receive 5,000l. in connection with the Millwall Company?

Witness—I will not swear. My belief is I received nothing.

Mr. Lewis—You used to advise the advances from Overend and Gurney. It is quite obvious what it was. I ask you have you have not received 5,000l. from that company?—I positively believe that I never received a single penny; if I ever did receive anything I have forgotten it.

You cannot forget such a thing as that. Don’t you see that if you did receive any such sum it was nothing else than bribery, and surely you can tell us whether you were bribed or not. You being a public officer appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and being paid a sum of money to advise Overend and Gurney whether they should advance money to a particular firm, can surely tell us whether you were bribed?—I never received a bribe from any one.

On your solemn oath have you received at various times any such sum as 5,000l. from the Millwall Company?—I positively believe not, but I will not swear that I did not. (Sensation.) I never received any money or present from Mr. Mare, or Mr. O’Beirne, or anybody in connexion with the Millwall Company. I never received a penny from Thos, Howard or Lever, nor from the Atlantic Royal Mail Company, except my fees. I receive the 500l. from Zenos for assisting him in the affairs as a shipping agent. I was not captain of one of his vessels, but I appointed a clerk of my own, who kept his books, and I went there from time to time to see how matters were going on.

Mr. Lewis—That was after 4 o’clock, I presume?—Yes. (Laughter.) When I was not at Overend and Gurney’s I was at Zeno’s, and when I was not at Zenos’s I was at Overend and Gurney’s. (Renewed laughter.) My agreement ended when Overend and Gurney appointed Mr. Carr to watch their affairs. My agreement with Zenos was either at the end of 1858 or the beginning of 1859 before I had any agreement with Messrs. Overend and Gurney. I have just remembered from him was after I had settled the terms of the arrangement with Mr. H E. Gurney.

The Lord Mayor—That was my impression.

Witness—I hope your lordship will take a not of that, because it was entirely a voluntary act. (Laughter.)

The Lord Mayor—He was so satisfied with the manner in which you had carried out the negotiations for Messrs. Overend and Gurney that he made you a present.

Sir T. Gabriel—It was a reward, I suppose, for not driving too hard a bargain with him. (Laughter.)

Mr. Lewis—Did you tell either of the defendants you had received 2,000l. from Mr. Pearson?

Witness (after some hesitation)—My impression is that I told Mr. H. E. Gurney.

Serjeant Ballantine—My lord, I must object to the impressions of the witness being given in evidence; there may be a change of position.

Sir T. Gabriel—Why do you not give your answers in a straightforward manner? Do you mean to say that you did?—I did.

Sir T. Gabriel—Then why did you not say so at one, instead of fencing about in the way you are doing (Applause in the body of the court.)

Examination resumed—I don’t know the loss on the business of Pearson. It was one of the business I was watching and I advised the advances. Pearson owed Overend and Gurney a large sum of money; but I don’t know whether it was 100,000l. or not.

You said that Mr. Birkbeck used very coarse language to you. What did he say? Probably you will remember it from the coarseness of the language. It might be appropriate.

Witness (turning to the Lord Mayor)—It is very difficult to repeat the exact language.

The Lord Mayor—Answer the question. Don’t look here.

Witness—He said, “If it had not been for you, we should not have had all theses losses.”

Mr. Lewis—Well, that is not very coarse language.

The Lord Mayor—I gather that there was a little word before “losses” (A laugh.)

Mr. Giffard—And perhaps two or three before the “you.” (Renewed laughter.)

By Mr. Lewis—I said “I have not been the cause of the losses;” but upon my word I cannot recollect what he said after. My impression is that I went out of the room directly. (Continued laughter.) I went at once to Mr. H. E. Gurney, and said, “Mr. Birkbeck has accused me of being the cause of some of your great losses. Do you entertain the same opinion?” Mr. Gurney said he did not. However, the result was that I obtained from them a letter.

“Sir T. Gabriel—A testimonial, I suppose?

Witness—A testimonial. (Laughter.)

The following letter was then produced and read:

“London-street, 20-12-64.

“Dear Sir,—Referring to the wish which you expressed that we should state to you the reasons for ceasing to avail ourselves of your services, we beg to inform you that we do so in consequence of our no longer requiring them, having declined the description of business in connection with which we formerly desired and received your assistance. We take this opportunity of adding that we fully recognise the assiduity with which you attended to such matters as were placed under your care, and are well satisfied that whatever advice you gave us respecting them, was dictated by a regard for our interests, and desire on your part to promote them.—Yours, faithfully, H. E. Gurney.

Mr. Lewis—on the 20th of December, 1864, you knew the secret of those heavy losses which the world did not know?—I knew that large advances had been made. The 20,000l. was placed to my credit on the 2nd January, 1865. The following is the letter I received in reference to it:

“Dear Sir,—We have placed to your credit with our house, in accordance with the terms of your letter to us dated December 20th, 1864—(Mr. Lewis—That is the day he received the other letter)—the sum of 20,000l. This will appear in our books as lying at fourteen days’ notice; any extra interest to be paid separately.—Your truly, Overend and Gurney.”

By the Lord Mayor—It is in the handwriting, I think, of Mr. H. E. Gurney?—The signature is.

By Mr. Lewis—I had written to the firm demanding 20,000l. for two years’ services rendered and two to be rendered.

Sir T. Gabriel—Speak to Mr. Lewis, not to me.

Mr. Lewis—But you were not to render any more; you had received your congé.

Witness—I had a grievance.

Did you draw the 20,000l. which had been placed to your credit after they had gone into the new company?

Witness—I have another letter here in reference to that:

“Lombard-street, 14—8—65.

“Dear Sir,—Owing the change which has been made here, we cannot continue to allow you more than the market rate, and therefore propose placing your money at our current rate at 14 days. Money on the 30th.—For Overend and Gurney (Limited), H. E. Gurney.”

Did you draw your 20,000l. from the fund of the shareholders?—No, it was transferred, I never took the cash till after the formation of the limited company clearly.

You knew how the limited company were situated?—No answer.

You knew how the private firm were situated?—No, I never knew anything at all connected with the private affair of Overend and Gurney.

By Sir T. Gabriel—I drew my salary year by year, and continued to do so up to the time I left.

Sir T. Gabriel—You are contracting yourself. You said you had drawn up to the time the 20,000l. was paid. If that be so, having already had 5,000l. a year for the two back years, nothing was due.

Witness—I received 5,000l. in December, 1862; I received 5,000l. in December, 1863; and therefore there was one year due to December 12th, 1864. I received that as part of the 20,000l.

Sir T. Gabriel—Then you were incorrect in saying that you received 5,000l. each year up to Dec. 12, 1864.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—But from 20,000l. this sum of 5,000l. was to be taken?

Sir T. Gabriel—You see, Serjeant Ballantine, this is different from what the witness told us before. He told us yesterday, and he has repeated it to-day, that he received it for two years’ back services.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—I am afraid it is not the only point on which you can fix a direct contradiction on him in the course of his evidence.

The Lord Mayor—At all events, we must take it that 5,000l. was received for services between 1863 and 1864.

Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—You are still official assignee?—Yes.

You are quite sure about it. You have been to your office to-day?—No I have not.

Any communication from the Lord Chancellor would go to your office, would it not?—Yes.

There was a firm in the City known as Edwards and O’Beirne—who were the partners in that firm?—The ostensible partners were my two brothers and Mr. O’Beirne; but I had myself an interest in it.

But were not you a partner?—I was a partner.

While you were in the position of an official assignee you were a partner in a mercantile affair?—It was not a mercantile affair; it was a financial business.

And Mr. O’Beirne, who was one of the partners in that business, was obtaining advances from Overend and Gurney, of whom you were the agent?—I was not a partner of Mr. O’Beirne during the time I was with Messrs. Overend and Gurney. It was after I left them I went into partnership with Mr. O’Beirne.

Who was the first person whom you knew connected with the old firm?—David Ward Chapman, whose acquaintance I formed many years ago. I made an advance to him of 5,000l., I think in 1859. He was then a member of the firm. Mr impression is that he did not wish the other members of the firm to know of the advance which I made him. I was introduced to the firm before then, and I was on intimate terms with Mr. Chapman, and I advanced him my first year’s salary of 5,000l.

Do I understand you to say that you were receiving money from the firm for your services, and making secret advances to a partner who wanted to conceal the fact? Is that what you wish to go forth to the public? Is that what you want to convey?—I wish to convey that having money of my own, and Mr. Chapman having asked me for an advance, I made it to him.

But you were actually receiving that money from the firm and advancing it to a partner?—That is true.

Now, I ask you whether you are prepared to swear that you had not money transactions with Mr. Chapman 18 months before the advance made out of the salary which you received?—I had no money transactions with Mr. Chapman until I made him the advance of 5,000l.

The Lord Mayor—That was your first advance to him, it being also your first year’s salary?—Yes.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—How did you make that advance?—In Bank notes.

Did Mr. Chapman ever pay you back?—No.

Now take this letter from yourself into your hands, and I shall be able to remind you of the reason that Mr. Birkbeck gave for getting rid of you. Was not the reason assigned by Mr. Birkbeck that your connexion with the firm had been injurious?

Witness (after a pause)—Yes.

That all the large losses of the firm had arisen from your advice?—Yes.

And that on the expiration of the terms of the agreement they intended to sever themselves from all connexion with you?—Yes.

Those were the reasons given by Mr. Birkbeck?—Yes.

But Mr. Gurney considered you an exemplary person?—Mr. Gurney wrote me that letter.

And so expressed himself to you when you tore yourself from the rude Birkbeck and found yourself in the arms of the gentle Gurney? (A laugh.)—No one entertained the same opinion as Mr. Birkbeck.

Sir T. Gabriel—We have had that complimentary testimonial read. Was it offered to you voluntarily by the parties, or did you demand it?

Witness—I asked them for it.

That was one of the conditions on which you made the settlement?—Clearly.

The witness went on to state that although the 20,000l. was placed to his credit, to be drawn out at fourteen days notice, it was an understanding that it was to remain in the bank for a longer time. The understanding arose before the letter was given. He volunteered to let it remain on deposit without specifying the time. He left it there till the limited company was formed.

The 20,000l.?—It was not 20,000l., it was 15,000l.

Mr Serjeant Ballantine—Quite different; and that is not the only case, I fear, in which you will find the facts different from his statements.

Witness—I am quite right in saying that the amount placed to my credit was the difference between 20,000l. and 5,000l.

Sir T. Gabriel—But you were wrong in allowing Mr. Lewis to draw the inference that the money was paid by the limited company.

The witness was then questioned as to the rate of interest he was to receive, and he said it was understood he was to receive 6 per cent.

A letter was put in from Mr. H. E. Gurney, dated 6th August, 1865, stating that in consequence of the change, they could not continue to allow more than the Bank rate.

Mr. Lewis—Had Mr. David Ward Chapman left the firm before the commencement of the limited company?—Yes.

Did you buy any shares in the limited company?—No.

Or deal with them at all?—No.

Are you quite sure that you had no transactions with them?—My strong impression is that I had not.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—Your first connexion with Mr. J. H. Gurney was in 1861, was it not?—I do not recollect.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine—Now, Mr. Edwards, this is getting a little too bad. I ask you whether you do not know perfectly well that it was in consequence of the mess you had got the affairs of the bank into that Mr. J. H. Gurney came up from Norwich, and for the first time learned how matters were going on?

Witness—I do not know. I deny that I was in any way the cause of their losses. In the one or two conversations I had with Mr. J. H. Gurney he did not tell me I was the cause of their losses, but he told me that the firm was perfectly able to carry all the matters which had taken place. May I add, that the debt to the Royal Atlantic Mail increased yearly. The money was advanced as the construction of the ships progressed; and if the ships had turned out capable of doing the work required, there would have been no loss to Overend and Gurney.

Who built those ships?—Messrs. Palmer and Co. and Messrs. Samuelson and Co.

Who made the contracts with them?—They were made before I joined.

Ha you any commission on the ships?—Not a shilling.

The witness, before leaving the box, handed in the following letter as one of those he had written to Mr. H. E. Gurney in relation to his dismissal:

“22, Basinghall-street, Jan 27, 1864.

“My dear sir,—To avoid any misunderstanding that may have arisen in consequence of the various conversations I have had, firstly, with Mr. Birkbeck; secondly, with yourself; thirdly, with Mr. Chapman; fourthly, with Mr. O’Beirne; and fifthly, with yourself yesterday, I think it should be thoroughly understood at the conversation now proposed to be had with Mr. J. H. Gurney this morning, that I had made no demand upon your house, but that I have only asked you, as head of the house in London, if the house has come to the same conclusion, as Mr. Birkbeck, viz., 1st. That my connection with you has been injurious. 2nd. That all your large losses have arisen from my advice. 3rd. That so soon as the matters now in my hands are considered wound up you do not intend to avail yourselves further of my services. And lastly, that expiration of the term of your present agreement with me that you intend to sever yourselves from all connection with me. I must add that to Mr. Birkbeck I am indebted for the first intimation of this your intention, as from every other member of your firm, except Mr. Arthur Chapman, I have, from what has been stated to me, been led to expect a very different result as the reward of unlimited confidence on your part and unremitting zeal and integrity amounting at times to self-sacrifice both of position and health on my part. On receiving your answer I must consult my friends as to what my future course must be, and beg to remain, yours most faithfully, E. W. EDWARDS.”

Dr. Thom, the prosecutor, recalled and examined by Mr. Lewis. I was not at all aware of any secret deed before I took my shares, and had I known there was such a deed I should not have taken them. I was induced to become a purchaser because I believed in the truth of the prospectus, and my belief was founded not upon any knowledge of the facts, but because I believed in the knowledge and veracity of the prospectus and authors of the limited company.

Mr. Lewis.—I beg to state to your lordship that this is the evidence I propose to produce in support of the charge, and I now apply on behalf of Dr. Thom to your lordship that you will, subject to anything that may be said on their behalf, commit the defendants for trial for the conspiracy set out in the information upon which the summons is issued.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine then addressed the court on behalf of Mr. J. H. Gurney, Mr. J. E. Gurney, and Mr. R. Birkbeck. They were the only defendants who were members of the old firm; but he wished to state that the other defendants, who were directors of the new company, imputed to them nothing like a dereliction of honour and honesty. Mr. Birkbeck, amongst others of the defendants, could scarcely credit the evidence given to-day by Mr. Edwards regarding young Mr. Chapman. For himself, he was not so incredulous. But before going into the history of those transactions, he would refer to the position of Mr. John Henry Gurney at the time they commenced. He was living at Norwich, having a large property uninvolved. He had but one-sixteenth of the Lombard-street business, and he trusted matters implicitly to those who were then managing it. In 1861 or 1862, from some accounts that were then submitted to him, he found that the firm was embarked in a dangerous business. He came up to town, and matters were investigated, and it turned out that Mr. D. W. Chapman, a comparatively young man, had been for some time acquainted with Mr. Edwards, who held an important public position as an official assignee in the Court of Bankruptcy, a position which ought to have prevented him from mingling in any other business. The exact nature of the relations between Mr. Edwards and the younger Mr. Chapman he would not inquire into. They culminated, no doubt, in the agreement entered into with Mr. Edwards, by which he was to receive 5,000l. a year, and the first sum of 5,000l. unquestionably found its way directly into the pockets of Mr. Chapman, jun., one of the partners of the firm. Such, at least, was the evidence of Mr. Edwards. No doubt the proper course would have been for Mr. Gurney when he came up to say, “Here is a loss of some hundreds of thousands of pounds; we can afford to lose it; let us go back to our proper business, and have no more of this.” If they had done so, in all human probability this painful inquiry would never have taken place. But the advice which came to them from at home and abroad—the hope that they would have better luck for the future—that common weakness of the human mind, induced them to go on; and then they had all along the admirable advice of Mr. Edwards, supporting, upholding, and encouraging them, till Mr. Birkbeck began to look into the matter, and said to him, “It is you who have got us into all those difficulties.” But Mr. Edwards did not like to be dismissed, and he wrote a letter which he thought would remind his lordship of letters that were sometimes produced in another court. The letter was eminently suggestive. The company might hope to recover its difficulties; but if intimation of those difficulties got somehow to the public, there was an end to the hope. The result was, that Mr. Edwards’ advice or counsel landed the company in a debt of three millions, while Mr. Edwards stepped off with the nice little sum of 20,000l. The charge was that these gentlemen, knowing that a large portion of their capital was hopelessly locked up—for he denied that they were hopelessly insolvent—issued a prospectus which was calculated to convey a false impression to the public, and that they met together, as it were, in camera, and in pursuance of a conspiracy they did issue this prospectus that there was no fraud, and no evidence of fraud in the minds of the defendants. There was reasonable ground for thinking that by the formation of this new company Overend and Gurney would obtain release from their difficulties. It was very important that this should be clearly understood. Mr. Birkbeck had discarded Edwards at any expense, and would have nothing to do with him; and the matters that Edwards introduced were matters that Mr. Birkbeck was determined to close. They were determined to carry on their business, from which they had a right to expect very large profits directly they were relieved from the weight of debt. They calculated on the profit made upon discount transactions in former years. They had made very large sums, and they might calculate that the business would continue to produce what it had done before. They had an idea that this weight would crush them, but they had an idea that assistance of some kind was needed. A matter of this kind generally told its own story, and the world generally must have known that fresh resources were necessary to carry on the business, and the firm determined to look the figures in the face. They backed their opinions in the best way which they could by risking every half penny they had in the world. The private estates of these gentlemen had realised altogether in round numbers 1,600,000l. of money. Therefore he had a right to deduct from the 3,000,000l. the 1,500,000l. that they were prepared to put into the ship. Then 500,000l. was to be added for the goodwill, and there was then, according to their calculation, a balance in their favour. He took the value of the accounts at 1,080, 000l. He was putting it not as if it were a mercantile case; he was dealing with it as a criminal charge, in which he had a right to place a supposition before his lordship, and therefore he was putting a value at which gentlemen might fairly have estimated the value of their estates, and he placed the value of the accounts at 1,080,000l., the goodwill at 500,000l., the premises at 45,000l., and the goodwill at 500,000l., the premises at 45,000l., and there was a further sum of 940,000l. Then he submitted that there was no misrepresentation in the prospectus, nor was there any concealment of the real facts of the question. The statement, however, made in the prospectus related to the business of the old firm; it had no reference to their liabilities; and there was nothing in it that was not connected with the facts as they actually occurred. In conclusion, he submitted that, though the defendants might have acted unwisely and imprudently, there was no evidence on which the charge of conspiracy and fraud could be substantiated, and that therefore they ought not to be committed for trial. (Slight applause.)

Mr. Serjeant Parry then addressed the court on behalf of Mr. Henry Ford Barclay. The case of Mr. Barclay, he said, differed from that of the three defendants for whom Mr. Serjeant Ballantine appeared, though he had the clearest instructions from Mr. Barclay to state that he had the fullest confidence in the integrity and honour of the other defendants. Mr. Barclay was the owner of a large independent fortune. He was never connected with Overend and Gurney until he was invited to take shares in the new company by men on whom he implicitly relied; and how could such a man be now charged, with any reasonable degree of probability, with having been actuated by a fraudulent mind? For direct and deliberate fraud—not mere negligence—must be proved. Before this charge could be established it must be shown that he knew that the old firm was hopelessly insolvent, and that he therefore brought into the concern 50,000l. of his own money for the purpose of defrauding the public, but himself also and his own family. There was not a tittle of evidence against his client upon which any jury in the world would convict; and if he could show this, he hoped he might rely upon his lordship not committing Mr. Barclay for trial. The two main facts upon which the accusation against Mr. Barclay depended were these:—The issuing of what was alleged to be a false prospectus, and the suppression of the second deed. Now where was the evidence that Mr. Barclay had anything to do with this prospectus? He agreed with the learned serjeant that it was only by a harsh and unjust interpretation of this prospectus that any falsehood could be found in it. But, without dealing with that, he asked where was the evidence that Mr. Barclay had to do with it? Then as regarded the deeds. It was alleged that one of these deeds was suppressed. He would not ask now whether the second deed disclosed more than the first. In the first deed it was clearly implied that there was a lock-up of capital. It spoke of assets and liabilities, both of which were guaranteed by the old firm; and any one reading the first deed would see that there was a lock-up, and might be expected to ask for information what those assets and liabilities were. He admitted that the second deed went more into detail, and that it extended the time during which the guarantee were to be renewed to 3½ years—probably on account of the difficulty in selling real property. But at any rate there was no evidence of fraud in Mr. Barclay’s dealings with the second deed. Moreover, he never executed the second deed; he merely witnessed the placing of the seal of the limited company to it. In consequence of the imaginative way in which Mr. Howell had given his evidence it was made to appear that Mr. Barclay had drawn out of Overend, Gurney, and Co. (Limited) the sum of 71,000l. in April and May, 1866. Mr. Lewis had endeavoured to show that Messrs. Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Twells, and Co. had a large amount in the concern which they withdrew. There was no fragment of truth in that, and Mr. Lewis had been misinformed. There was ample security for every farthing of the 700,000l. As to the 71,000., that was transferred from account to the other, and at the time of stoppage there was 41,000l. to the account current of the Norwich Bank, if it were produced, would place that transaction in a light favourable to his client; but, although Mr. Lewis had given notice for the production of the deed, he had not asked so because he believed the deed would not support his case. In conclusion the learned serjeant submitted that there was no evidence on which a jury could convict Mr. Barclay, and he appealed to the court to relieve that gentleman from all further suspense and anxiety, and to send him back to society to the honourable position he had so long held. (Applause.)

Mr. Giffard then addressed the court on behalf of Mr. Bennie. He understood the vital points of the charge against Mr. Rennie to be these: that he conspired to palm off upon the public the firm of Overend and Gurney, which he knew to be hopelessly insolvent, and that his motives were—first, that the firm with which he was connected had 56,000l. on deposit with Overend and Gurney, of which they could not realise more than 6d. in the pound if Overend and Gurney were to be wound up; and further, that there were large money dealings between the two firms—bills to the extent of 600,000l. or 700,000l.—and it was stated by the prosecution that if Overend and Gurney had failed at that time it would at least have been “very awkward,” if not fatal, for Cavan, Lubbock, and Co.; and there was the further question respecting what was called the secret deed. Now, as to the 56,000l., that charge, by general concession, had disappeared; for it had been found that 45,000l. was paid in within a few days of the formation of the new firm. Well, with regard to the second point, which had a plausible appearance, the motive attributed to his client rested upon the hypothesis that the bills in question were bad, whereas they had all been paid; and inasmuch as the limited company only lasted nine months, it was clear that the relief supposed to have been obtained by his client, or by the firm with which he was connected, was of no importance whatever, when it was borne in mind that the whole of the bills were met and paid. Having thus disposed of these two charges, he now came to the second or secret deed, and upon this point he desired to offer the clearest possible explanation, because he was convinced that the subject was perfectly susceptible of a satisfactory elucidation. The learned counsel referred to the different clauses of the two deeds, arguing with great force that the second deed was merely ancillary to the first, and that the effect of it was merely to regulate the mode in which the first deed should be carried out, and consequently that the presumption of fraud from the secrecy of the deed failed.

Mr. Serjeant Sleigh next addressed the court on behalf of Mr. Gordon. The only points relied upon by the prosecution as bearing against Mr. Gordon were that he drew out the prospectus, and was a party to what had been termed the secret deed, but which deed was, in fact, nothing more than an arrangement by which the old firm bound themselves to carry out the guarantee given in the first. He drew particular attention to the fact that Mr. Gordon was in no way connected with the old firm, and that he could have no possible motive in joining the company than that which actuated Mr. Gibb, a desire to be a shareholder in so eminent a firm, and he was no more amenable to a charge of conspiracy than Mr. Gibb would have been.

The Lord Mayor (after consulting with Sir T. Gabriel)—The court will adjourn till Wednesday next. The arguments of the learned counsel will be fully considered, and will have due weight. There are various documents to which it will be necessary to refer, and our decision will be given on Wednesday.

The court adjourned at half-past 6 o’clock, the sitting having lasted seven hours and a half.

#### TRADE AND FINANCE.

DURING the past fortnight the chief London Joint Stock Banks have (with one considerable exception)held their meetings. Their half-yearly reports cannot be looked upon as unsatisfactory on the whole, although they perhaps appear less encouraging than when commercial affairs were at even a lower ebb. It is not the first time that we have had occasion to observe that the consequences of a year of mercantile disaster are scarcely known until some time afterwards. But on mere technical point slight ground remains for encouragement. The joint stock banks just hold their own, and there is little more to be said. They have done as well as might be expected, but there are dangers to avoid which are perhaps more obtrusive in quiet than in critical times. It is hoping against hope expect that our [bankers] will abandon the p[resent] practice of leaving a part, and often a great part, of their cash reserves at call. They have not been taught by the lesson of OVEREND, GURNEY, and Co. Of the peril of this system, and it is little use to pursue the subject further until some new catastrophe brings it home with force.

According to the published accounts of the bunks the following are the deposits, compared with the corresponding period of the previous year. The London Joint Stock is not included, since this institution is the solitary exception in not giving the simple details which all the other joint stock banks find no trouble or inconvenience in furnishing. Reticence is, however, the peculiarity of this particular company. Some years ago, instead of detailing the items of their assets, the London Joint Stock were accustomed to announce them in one grand sum, where government securities, cash, commercial bills, and all kinds of loans, were lumped together. The plan may have been convenient, but hardly satisfactory, since it has been more than half abandoned now. The deposit the principal banks are thus stated:

DEPOSITS.

|  | 1867 | 1868 |
|---|---|---|
| London and Westminster. | £22,010,572 | £19,638,542 |
| Union | 12,071,097 | 10,845,021 |
| London Joint Stock | Not specified. | Not specified. |
| Consolidated | 2,184,783 | 2,339,148 |
| City Bank | 2,229,791 | 2,451,941 |
| Alliance | 1,322,218 | 1,354,9[50] |
| Imperial | 1,177,967 | 1,22[6,762] |
| Totals | £40,996,428 | £37,856,3[64] |

It thus appears that a falling off of upwards of three millions has taken place in the deposits of six of the above banks. On the othere hand, the acceptances have increased to a more than corresponding extent. The details are subjoined:

ACCEPTANCES.

|  | 1867. | 1868. |
|---|---|---|
| London and Westminster. | £902,700 | £1,074,779 |
| Union | 5,298,743 | 6,250,835 |
| London Joint Stock | Not specified. | Not specified. |
| Consolidated | 102,414 | 237,050 |
| City Bank | 1,418,388 | 2,721,177 |
| Alliance | 98,451 | 248,367 |
| Imperial | 134,726 | 127,112 |
| Totals | £7,955,512 | £10,659,[320] |

The two items stand together as follows. The London Join Stock Bank total is added:

|  | 1867. | 1868. |
|---|---|---|
| Deposits | £40,996,428 | £37,856,364 |
| Acceptances | 7,955,512 | 10,659,320 |
| London Joint Stock (lumped together) | 11,977,332 | 14,779,010 |
|  | £60,929,272 | £63,294,694 |

The profits have closely approximated to those of the corresponding half-year; but that is not too encouraging. They stand as under:

PROFITS FOR HALF-YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31.

|  | 1867. | 1868. |
|---|---|---|
| London and Westminster. | £147,646 | £135,587 |
| Union | 89,711 | 102,029 |
| London Joint Stock | 60,926 | 58,592 |
| Consolidated | 27,263 | 29,291 |
| City Bank | 40,832 | 39,779 |
| Alliance | 5,734 | 4,921 |
| Imperial | 10,671 | 11,355 |
|  | £382,783 | £381,554 |

The dividends declared were as follows. With repect to the London Joint Stock Bank, it may be mentioned that in both half-years it was necessary to trench upon the reserve or guarantee fund to make up the total for distribution:

DIVIDENDS PER CENT. PER ANNUM.

|  | 1867. | 1868. |
|---|---|---|
| London and Westminster. | 32 | 26 |
| Union | 15 | 15 |
| London Joint Stock | 12½ | [12½] |
| Consolidated | 5 | [6½] |
| City Bank | 7 | [7] |
| Alliance | Nil. | [3] |
| Imperial | 5 | 5 |

We conclude our statistics by giving a comparison of the past and present capital and reserve:

CAPITAL AND RESERVE FUND.

|  | 1867. | 1868. |
|---|---|---|
| London and Westminster. | £1,998,720 | £2,995,125 |
| Union | 1,500,000 | 1,500,000 |
| London Joint Stock* | 1,599,609 | 1,608,285 |
| Consolidated* | 900,000 | 900,000 |
| City | 580,000 | 580,000 |
| Alliance | 989,725 | 979,997 |
| Imperial | 493,940 | 493,940 |

There is however something more to be said though these banks have not made large profits, they have not made large profits, they have not lost money. Much credit is due to the management of institutions which, after the terrible collapse of confidence of the last three years, can present balancesheets like these. Prudence has been evidently the motto of their conductors, and prudence must and ought to be the first principle of banking. The spectacle of sound management is needed; for, humiliating as the avowal is, it must be confessed that the basted commercial honour of England is now despised abroad. Such sandals as those of Overend and Gurney’s, and many others, seriously affect our national repute. Those who travel know too well the taunts and reproaches which our evil doings in this sense have provoked and do provoke. We have, indeed, been contributing a melancholy chapter to the financial annuals of our time. To be just, we must admit there is nothing new in all this—an era of speculation always breeds mischief and bad faith. Gambling is a strong propensity with the greater part of us—plodding industry is dull. To get rich quickly and without labour is almost a passion even in these cold northern islands. The main evil of the moment is that the misdoings of a few shed a blight upon all. And distrust paralyses action. Business men fear each other, and so commerce languishes and enterprise dies. Should this be so? Because a few gigantic frauds excite popular attention and draw some of us from steady daily work, is England all dishonest, and our manufacturing power and our good repute to be cast to the winds?

*Exclusive of special reserve. *Exclusive of shares surrendered to the bank for debt, &c.

#### TRADE AND FINANCE.

WE have not advocated the purchase of Railways by the State. Governments manage business so badly that we are against trusting them with anything more than it is possible to help. If they do succeed at first with a great department like the Post-office, under the guidance of enthusiastic promoters and with a special administration, they do not escape complaints of routine and inefficiency when the zeal at the commencement has died away, and the administration in inferior hands becomes a machine without a guide. It may be necessary to let them manage such business, since to leave it to the public might for various reasons be worse, but it is uphill work to make the management what it ought to be, even with the daily stimulus of public criticism and complaint, and the opportunity of Parliamentary remonstrance. We should much prefer, therefore, to let the Railways alone, trusting to the natural influences of private interest and competition, and longer experience, for an amendment of existing evils. But just because we do so we may be allowed to give a note of warning. The cries of a suffering public under railway mismanagement are not at present very loud, but there is deep and growing discontent; and unless the companies take care, their absorption by the State on the hardest terms, or some extensive State intervention in their affairs, is unavoidable. There is great distrust of the Government, but people are saying that a railway board is worse than a State department. The public especially have not forgotten the recent flagrant sacrifice of their interests for the sake of a temporary gain—the diminution of trains and increase of prices all round, that insolvent spendthrifts, by finding an overflowing traffic, might escape the consequences of their own folly. They do no relish being made the victims of a wasteful expenditure, which was never intended for their benefit, though a pretence of that sort was put forward. In this mood they are likely to consider the alternative of government purchase with much more tolerance than before.

Railway companies, however, neither understand what is expected by the public from the undertakings they manage, nor the magnitude of their own shortcomings. They are thinking very much of their dividends, and very little of the public, except as an unreasonable creature which is apt to demand the impossible and to object to fares that pay, but which can be brought to reason in the long run by a steady application of the screw. Instead of this the popular opinion about their fares and rates and accommodation is steady and settled, and railway companies will find they must satisfy it under penalty of strict retribution. The opinion is that in a populous country such as this, studded with manufacturing towns, with all the conditions of railway prosperity in the highest vigour, the least they can expect is the cheapest rates which are going anywhere and the amplest accommodation. When they hear of exceptional advantages on favoured lines in this country, where, as on the Clyde, the competition of steamers produces marvels of cheapness on the parallel railway lines; or of fares a half, a third, or a fourth lower in neighbouring countries which are not so thickly settled, they conclude that the experience is widely applicable—that if they have not generally the same advantages, things are not only a little but very far amiss. The conclusion, we must say, is highly reasonable; and is not to be got over by vague talk about the exceptional speed of our trains, passengers privileges to carry luggage, and the rapidity with which goods are conveyed and delivered. The margin of advantages elsewhere is too wide to be covered by these details, which do not obviously cause so much additional expense as to prevent the other and more desirable advantages from being conceded. How wide the margin is in one instance, may be seen from the Report on Belgian railways which the Irish Railway Commission has just made, and which ought to be attentively studied by who are interested in the future of our railway companies. To take the case of passengers alone, as more generally intelligible, and coming home to people more than that of goods, the result of the report is that the Belgian State railways are worked at a profit, with the following passenger fares:

|  | Rate per mile. |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|
|  | 1st class. | 2nd class. | 3rd class. |
| Under 22 miles | 1.24d. | 0.93d. | 0.62d. |
| Above 22 miles | 1.17d. | 0.84d. | 0.56d. |
|  | 0.46d. | 0.32d. | 0.23d. |

Even the highest of these, for short distance, is much less than the ordinary charge on our English line; and as the charge falls with the increase of distance up to 155 miles, when it is a third of the maximum charge, it may be imagined how cheaply travelling is done in Belgium. To put the facts in a popular shape, the minimum first-class fare in Belgium may be taken as a halfpenny per mile; the minimum second-class fare a third of a penny per mile; the minimum third-class fare one farthing per mile. This is a state of things which the customary explanations of English railway officials can hardly touch. The most that can be made of return tickets, season tickets, extra speed, luggage privileges, and the rest, still leaves the solid fact that people may get from place to place in Belgium for very much smaller sums of money than they can in England. They do not always want the other advantages, and would prefer a system under which extras were directly charged, so that the requirement of personal travelling could be judged by itself. We know very well, however, what share of these boasted advantages falls to the lowest class of travellers. And even in respect of them the Belgian system may stand comparison.

English companies have nothing to compare with the express Belgian fares, which are only twenty per cent. higher than the ordinary rates, and with the addition of third-class carriages to every express train. These are the things which poor travellers can best appreciate, and are in striking contrast with the manner in which our companies run slow parliamentary trains at the most inconvenient hours of the 24.

To understand the whole difference it is only necessary to apply the Belgian scale to some of the English lines. The Brighton Company has been one of the most conspicuous in victimising the public, and asserting that the public are unreasonable in their outcry. Contrast, then, the natural expense of travelling as evidenced by the Belgian scale with the prince we are called on to pay.

LONDON AND BRIGHTON.

|  | ORDINARY. |  |  |  |  |  |  | EXPRESS. |  |  |  |  |  |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  | 1st cl. |  | 2d cl. |  | 3d cl. |  |  | 1st cl. |  | 2d cl. |  | 3d cl. |  |
|  | s. | d. | s. | d. | s. | d. |  | s. | d. | s. | d. | s. | d. |
| Actual fares | 10 | 0 | 7 | 9 | 4 | 2 |  | 12 | 3 | 10 | 0 | — | — |
| Belgian scale | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 |  | 3 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 9½ |

The differences are so great as to be almost incredible; but it is to a public knowing the Belgian experience to be applicable, that the railway companies venture to repeat their platitudes in defence of the present system. We have applied the Belgian third-class scale to other places, especially to long distances, and the comparison is, if possible, more striking:

|  |  |  | Belgian Ordinary. | Scale Express. | English 3rd class. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  | Miles. |  |  |  |
| London to | Harrow | 11½ | 7¼d. | 8¾d. | 11½d. |
|  | Windsor | 21¼ | 1s. 2d. | 1s. 5½d. | 1s. 9d. |
|  | Bletchley | 46¾ | 1s. 6d. | 1s. 10d. | 3s. 10½d. |
|  | Peterborough | 70 | 1s. 10d. | 2s. 2½d. | 5s. 9d. |
|  | Bristol | 118½ | 2s. 7d. | 3s. 1d. | 9s. 10d. |
|  | Crewe | 158 | 3s. | 3s. 7d. | 13s. 2d. |
|  | Bradford | 191 | 4s. | 4s. 10d. | 15s. 10½d. |
|  | Leeds | 192½ |  |  | 15s. 5½d. |
|  | York | 191 |  |  | 15s. 10½d. |
|  | Manchester | 188¾ |  |  | 15s. 6d. |
|  | Exeter | 194 | 4s. 0½d. | 4s. 10½d. | 14s. 3½d. |
|  | Liverpool | 201¾ | 4s. 2½d. | 5s. 1d. | 16s. 9d. |
|  | Newcastle | 275¼ | 5s. 9d. | 6s. 11d. | 30s. |
|  | Carlisle | 299½ | 6s. 3d. | 7s. 6d. | 24s. 2½d. |
|  | Edinburgh | 401 | 8s. 4d. | 10s. | 33s. |
|  | Glasgow | 406 | 8s. 6d. | 10s. 2d. | 33s. |
|  | Aberdeen | 542¼ | 11s. 4d. | 13s. 7d. | 40s. |

This is not the hypothesis of a reformer or projector regarding whose calculations, however sound they may be, it may not be difficult to produce bewilderment and doubt. Figures in any shape are not easily followed in a public discussion, but every one can see that if people travel in Belgium for 4s. ordinary and 4s. 10d. express where the distance is like that between London and Manchester, the necessary cost of travelling in England can hardly be 15s. 6d. The truth is that, if the Belgian system could be applied, the saving of money would be more than the repeal of half-a-dozen first-rate taxes, while the majority of people would buy far more travelling accommodation than they are now permitted to do under a prohibitive tariff. Like many other taxes, the railway tax is not only burdensome in what it takes from people, but in what it keeps them from spending.

The lesson is for railway directors and shareholders. Although the public ideal is high, we believe they could be won over to the present system by moderate temporary concession, with the prospect of greater benefits as time progresses. On the principle of give and take they are not unwilling that railway shareholders, although they have themselves to blame, should make some profit for themselves. They believe that private companies endeavouring to make a fair profit should nevertheless be able to give all the advantages which a government department can give, but which is indolent and inefficient without the spur of personal interest. But it is for the railway companies to make the theory correspond with facts. If they do not; if they imitate government departments in unthrift and carelessness, and expect to fill their pockets or recoup their extravagant outlay by fleecing those whom they serve; if they abuse their monopoly, in short, instead of using it for the general advantage, it is not difficult to predict what the end will be. Sooner or later popular patience will be exhausted, and measures will be tried, for good or for evil, by which the present railway bodies who have so shamefully thrown away their chances will certainly not be gainers.

#### TRADE STATISTICS FOR 1868.

The principal features of the Board of Trade Returns for the past year have already been published, but it is worth nothing how far our commerce varies with each country of the globe. Annexed is a statement in detail, and certainly some of the results shown are sufficiently remarkable. The fact that our dependencies take about 28 per cent. of the sum, is only to be expected, but when we add to these the exports to the first four foreign nations on the list—Germany, the United States, France, and Holland—we arrive at a total of 64 per cent., or not far short of two-thirds of the whole. Going further down the scale, we find among our next best customers the half-civilized States of Turkey, Egypt, China, and Brazil. Italy takes two-thirds of the Turkish demand, Russia rather less than three-fifths. It may astonish Spanish patriots to know that our export trade with Spain amounts to about one seventy-fifth of the whole, and may perhaps help to correct their prevalent ideas on the immense value of their commerce to the English nation. Austria, about whose commercial recognition so much is said, is still below Japan, and not very much a-head of bankrupt Greece. The most noteworthy movement is perhaps the displacement of the United States by Germany as the largest of our foreign customers. The general figures are as under:

BRITISH POSSESIONS.

|  | 1866. | 1867. | 1868. |
|---|---|---|---|
| India | £20,009,400 | £21,805,127 | £21,211,343 |
| Australasia | 13,643,326 | 9,613,739 | 12,071,433 |
| British North America | 6,824,960 | 5,862,402 | 4,847,560 |
| Hong Kong | 2,387,017 | 2,471,809 | 2,186,100 |
| West Indies | 1,956,019 | 1,666,697 | 1,786,728 |
| Singapore | 1,986,802 | 2,068,910 | 1,513,397 |
| Cape of Good Hope | 1,226,842 | 1,701,441 | 1,322,111 |
| Ceylon | 1,082,973 | 771,879 | 835,798 |
| Gibraltar | 1,134,699 | 723,313 | 705,627 |
| British Guiana | 730,058 | 625,943 | 671,098 |
| British West Africa | 533,575 | 630,037 | 613,279 |
| Channel Islands | 490,859 | 469,523 | 556,458 |
| Malta | 653,303 | 498,796 | 500,422 |
| Mauritius | 569,385 | 377,450 | 383,618 |
| Natal | 172,182 | 191,570 | 269,122 |
| British Honduras | 144,041 | 148,016 | 133,573 |
| Aden | 65,400 | 79,127 | 75,763 |
| Bermudas | 40,240 | 43,479 | 46,963 |
| St. Helena | 41,811 | 36,936 | 32,562 |
| Falkland Islands | 17,027 | 7,611 | 13,408 |
| Ascension | 9,209 | 5,710 | 3,034 |
| Heligoland | 93 | 70 | 164 |
| Totals | £53,719,371 | £49,799,610 | £49,779,563 |

FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

| Germany | 15,767,690 | 20,542,653 | 22,777,390 |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 28,499,514 | 21,825,703 | 21,410,184 |
| France | 11,700,140 | 12,121,010 | 10,633,721 |
| Holland | 8,999,713 | 9,422,742 | 10,392,253 |
| Turkey | 7,965,404 | 6,625,498 | 7,523,031 |
| China | 5,090,974 | 4,996,469 | 6,312,866 |
| Egypt | 7,556,185 | 8,198,111 | 6,068,569 |
| Brazil | 7,224,733 | 5,694,557 | 5,323,937 |
| Italy | 5,832,876 | 4,831,353 | 5,002,525 |
| Russia | 3,176,656 | 3,944,035 | 4,250,721 |
| Foreign (W. Indies) | 3,666,099 | 3,335,760 | 3,299,499 |
| Belgium | 2,861,665 | 2,816,481 | 3,149,769 |
| New Granada | 2,947,778 | 2,390,931 | 2,704,958 |
| Spain | 2,337,133 | 2,503,636 | 2,403,545 |
| Chili | 1,852,983 | 2,524,438 | 1,958,234 |
| Argentine Confederation | 2,810,936 | 2,837,124 | 1,922,991 |
| Portugal | 2,213,462 | 2,006,039 | 1,723,270 |
| Denmark | 1,202,811 | 1,282,358 | 1,441,768 |
| Sweden and Norway | 1,677,836 | 1,496,161 | 1,392,371 |
| Peru | 1,355,950 | 1,422,122 | 1,135,213 |
| Japan | 1,444,539 | 1,545,386 | 1,106,069 |
| Austria | 912,058 | 953,952 | 1,081,575 |
| Greece | 851,648 | 949,124 | 975,081 |
| Philippine Islands | 917,841 | 1,042,648 | 955,081 |
| Uruguay | 1,392,803 | 1,452,508 | 930,973 |
| Foreign (W. Africa) | 602,532 | 816,450 | 901,309 |
| Dutch Indian Possess | 1,72,860 | 1,329,485 | 851,620 |
| Mexico | 1,283,213 | 812,948 | 849,481 |
| Danubian Principalities. | 184,563 | 432,655 | 634,070 |
| Morocco | 191,237 | 180,367 | 195,655 |
| Central America | 153,264 | 243,560 | 160,051 |
| Venezuela | 410,423 | 200,136 | 69,599 |
| Islands in Pacific | 137,493 | 19,888 | 47,988 |
| Tunis | 71,987 | 67,204 | 47,611 |
| Cape Verde Islands | 34,166 | 31,885 | 30,852 |
| Ecuador | 43,833 | 44,672 | 28,982 |
| Algeria | 15,743 | 22,625 T | 23,597 |
| East Africa | 53,396 | 36,185 | 20,641 |
| Persia | 25,906 | 14,069 | 17,498 |
| Arabia (native) | 2,772 | 6,638 | 4,774 |
| Bolivia | 12,907 | 3,852 | 3,425 |
| Madagascar | 14,355 | 3,319 | 3,257 |
| Siam | 4,036 | 4,244 | 3,072 |
| Cochin-China | 940 | 612 | 431 |
| North Whale Fisheries | — | 100 | 300 |
| Abyssinia | — | — | 128 |
| French Indian Possess’ns | — | 2,074 | — |
| Patagonia | — | — | — |
| Foreign totals | £135,198,165 | £131,162,313 | £129,684,081 |
| Grand totals | £188,917,536 | £180,961,923 | £179,463,644 |

The total imports and exports of bullion show the subjoined results:

IMPORTS.

| 1866 | £34,287,139 |
|---|---|
| 1867 | £23,821,047 |
| 1868 | £24,852,595 |

EXPORTS.

| 1866 | £21,670,687 |
|---|---|
| 1867 | £14,327,289 |
| 1868 | £20,220,014 |

The difference between the amount sent out and that retained here, is nearly twenty-six millions and three-quarters in our favour. With so large a balance in hand, the withdrawal of a few hundred thousand pounds from the Bank ought not to be very alarming feature, or to keep the commercial dreading tightness in the money market, and a rise in the rate of discount.

The following are the details of the shipping returns. In each year British vessels show a satisfactory increase:

|  | 1866 | 1867 | 1868 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entered Inwards. | Tons. | Tons. | Tons. |
| British | 9,214,299 | 9,355,459 | 9,571,766 |
| United States | 431,103 | 455,197 | 458,070 |
| Other foreign countries | 3,630,491 | 3,530,061 | 3,821,481 |
| Totals | 13,275,893 | 13,340,717 | 13,851,317 |

|  | 1866 | 1867 | 1868 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cleared Outwards. | Tons. | Tons. | Tons. |
| British vessels | 9,951,721 | 10,586,370 | 10,901,685 |
| United States | 513,614 | 514,963 | 564,132 |
| Other foreign countries | 3,541,631 | 3,746,284 | 4,009,175 |
| Totals | 14,006,966 | 14,847,617 | 15,474,992 |

---

[^lic]: Text from MEGAdigital (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities), MEGA² IV/19, licence CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/); the editorial apparatus of the MEGA is not reproduced.