OUR LONDON LETTER.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1236, 20 February 1878, Page 2

OUR LONDON LETTER.

[written specially for the globe. J

London, January 3.

When I was writing my last letter—three weeks ago to-day—l announced that henceforth the mail communication between England and New Zealand was, according to th e then intentions of the Post-office, to be more regular than heretofore. Only a few days, however, elapsed before I learned that the whole of the contemplated system of regularity had been overthrown. The mail i s to go to-day, instead of this day week, and an entirely new system of mails via San Francisco is to be promptly announced. All this is much to be deplored. Such a shilly shally way of doing business must cause some trouble to business people -who look carefully after matters like the post, but it will bo sure to give rise to a great deal of disappointment to less regular and private correspondents, particularly at this season of the year, and it any who read these lines have not received the expected letters from homo they may be sure that in spite of all the publicity which the Loudon newspapers always give to changes in the mails, numbers of people will be writing and posting their letters next week in ignorance that the recently promised scheme of regularity has been “ knocked on the head.” A regular monthly mail from to-day is once more promised. Well, after this little preliminary grumble, not unwarranted 1 hope, let me wish all my readers in New Zealand a very happy and prosperous new year. They may like to hoar something of what kind of a Christmas was spent at home. A better one, then, let me tell them, than 1 have known for several years. Coal is cheap, and beef is lower in price than since the cattle plague spread devastation over our farms.- We had proper weather, too. For two weeks before Christmas London was as gloomy as the orthodox opening scene of a pantomime. People who have never lived in London would hardly believe it possible, but it is nevertheless a fact that during one week in December we only saw the sun for six hours, and in the week following for only four. Instead of the bright cold weather that imaginative writers always picture as the ideal English Christmas, we had it what the modern people call “ muggy,” w'hich means something indescribably horrible. I dropped in at my club one afternoon, and found that a fellow-member, who is always grumbling at almost everything the cook a fid thp steward provide, was in the act pf writing one more' complaint tp the iiou.se committee, and thistime hp did it in the way of a little joke which J hope they appreciated. By the way I ought to say that the Club once had a reputation for the nicest and not expensive diaoets that cphid be devise^

but something or somebody has caused a little deterioration. Well, my acquaintance was putting this conundrum to the house committee. “Why,” wrote he, “is a good dinner at the Club like a frosty Christmas ?” He did not put the answer in his note, but he intends to tell it personally to one of the committee, as he did to me. “Because,” said I—and I could not get any further, for I am not much of a hand at guessing the answers to riddles, unless I have heard them before. “ Because,” said he, “it is a thing very rarely seen now-a-daye.” Anyhow, 1 hope he will get as good a dinner the next time he dines there as we Londoners had a pleasant Christmas. After the fortnight’s mysterious gloom and sleet the weather turned on the eve of the great festival to be most open and bracing.l j: Late on Christmas Eve came our first snowfall, and the roysterers who went home late that night singing the praises of “ Nancy Lee,” or shouting to “Jeremiah, blow the fire, puff, puff, puff ” (which is one of the latest of our comic absurdities), found themselves slightly covered with snow, and their songs carried a long way by the sharp cold wind that had sprung up after nightfall. The snow did not fall long. I expected that my visitors would have to come through three or four inches of snow, but instead they had a cold bright morning, that made travelling a few miles before dinner a positive pleasure. It was different when they went home at night, for there was a drenching fall of sleet. All London makes a regular carnival of Boxing Day, and this year the holiday folks had a most delightful time of it. Later in the week we had another and a heavier snowfall, which turned before midnight to a drenching rain, and since then the atmosphere has been milder and almost spring like. The tradesmen have had, I think, a very capital season this Christmas. In spite of the depression about which we have heard so much for months, and which still continues in some branches, amongst the general public there has been plenty of money afloat, and it has not been grudgingly spent. All sorts of alarming political rumours are afloat, and a few days before Christmas we were alarmed one morning by the quite unexpected announcement that, owing to the serious aspect of Continental affairs, Parliament would meet this day fortnight, or quite three weeks earlier than the usual time. “ We’re going to war,” said one ; “ The Q-overnment want to borrow several millions,” said another. “Do you remember,” asked another who has grey whiskers now, “ the rate of income tax in the Crimean war ?” The alarmists had a fine time of it, both in society and on the Exchanges for a few hours. People in general did not fear much, or resolved to put off their fear until they reached the day when the Queen’s speech should tell them the worst. “ None of these things move me,” said St. Paul to the Ephesian elders when he was about to go to Jerusalem, and knew not what might happen to him there. Just such a feeling must have pervaded the minds of most people, for it was quite a pleasure to see them going about making their preparations. The shops were full of purchasers, and from what I saw of some Westend establishments on Christmas Eve, the clearance of goods was astonishing. And, as if to help ua to keep Christmas in the jolliest manner, Nature was most kind to us, and the supply of holly and mistletoe was more abundant than for many past seasons. Of course I have been to see the best of the pantomimes, for with every Boxing Day I feel a renewal of the pleasme of my youth at seeing the bright interior of our large theatres. The children this year have no cause to grumble. The attractions held out to the public were never surpassed, and I never saw so many children “ taken to the play.” Aii;entertainment has been specially provided for them at the finest of our theatres, her Majesty’s, which has been somewhat under a cloud since the death of Mdlle. Titiens, whose successor has yet to be found. It was part of Mr Mapleson’s scheme that his theatrical or operatic performances should be supplemented by a grand ballet, and with that view he founded a training school for dancing. He has succeeded so far as to have 300 children, not only presentable on a large stage, but so well drilled as to be able to execute a very charming divertissement which takes nearly two hours to perform. This is the most promising venture he has yet made. Drury Lane has, of course, the very best pantomime, for that house commands everything that money can procure, including the inimitable Yokes family, who have shown towards Old Drury a constancy that is rarely possessed by theatrical people. Oovent Garden has about the worst of its many failures, and on Boxing Night, when its [pantomime was first played, none of the tricks in the harlequinade would go off, and, disgusted with the failure, the audience had pretty nearly all gone home before the curtain came down. At the Gaiety, where, as a rule, things are wonderfully well administered, they had a similar misfortune, whicli so afflicted the manager, himself an old theatrical critic, and one of the best of them, that he wrote a note to the editors of the daily newspapers beseeching them to withhold their notices and send their representatives to see a second performance. But I must return to business. More rapid than any of the tricks to be seen on the stage has been the transformation in the value of shares effected by the directors of the Union Bank of Australia, who have convened a meeting for to-morrow week. At this special general meeting of shareholders, the directors, after submitting the usual statement of accounts and announcing the dividend, will propose a resolution for the purpose of increasing the capital of the bank by the issue of 10,00 Q new shares of $23 each, at a premium of £33 per share, such shares to be issued pro rata to the proprietors. This announcement, which was made just after Christmas, has caused almost a revolution in Union Bank shares at a time when dealings in them are very quiet. Before this announcement was made the shares were quoted at 68, and had even reached as high as 68i ; but when this scheme for the enlargement of capital was made known they fell at once to 66, went down in the course of the morning to 65 J-, and before the day closed business was done in them at 64 j. On New Year’s day the Stock Exchange is not open, and yesterday when business was resumed Union Bank shares rallied somewhat. A little was done in them at 66-J, but the closing quotations are given at 65-07.

Our Law Courts are not sitting this week, but before the judges adjourned for their Christmas vacation they had some noteworthy cases before them. One raised a question of singular interest to the commercial world, and contained a remarkable revelation as to tire great facilities for fraud which even a strictly managed Government department may afford. The defendant in this case was Lord Elibank, a Scotch nobleman, who has not yet attained to middle age. Very early in life he entered the Royal Xavy, in which he continued for many years until he married and came to the peerage —two events which happened not far distant from each other. Having in later days time on his hands, and perhaps because he had never had any commercial education, ho was deemed to be a proper person to be made director of a public company, and ho joined the Board of the General Sewage Manure Company, a very unpromising scheme. The secretary was one Mr Maloney, who had been a manufacturer at Coventry. We don’t know what he manufactured there, but he was a man of consumate skill at drawing bills. The company got into difficulties, and it became necessary to raise money • by discounting paper. Maloney procured bill stamps to cover small amounts, and they asked the directors to sign them in blank. Amongst others Lord Elibank put his name to some of the slips, which were then sent to the Inland Revenue office at Somerset House, and superimpressed with mors stamps to cover a very much higher amount than was originally intended. On the heavy stamps bills were drawn for sums considerably greater than the directors knew of ; Maloney found no difficulty in discounting them, for times then being bad people were ready to snatch at the paper of eyen'a doubtful company. Amongst olhc-o who discounted these acceptances was Mr Hoole, a manufacturer at Sheffield, but when they became duo Lord Elibank denounced the whole thing as a fraud, and refused to pay, and none of the bills hsvs fee?a

paid. An action followed, and it came for trial before Mr Justice Field. When Lord Elibank had given his evidence the Court rose for the day, and on the trial being resumed next morning it was stated that the matter had been compromised—on what terms was not made public, and for a very good reason. Th» artful Maloney has been given into custody by the directors, and is awaiting his trial, which had been postponed until after the result of this action. A more barefaced fraud was never practised on confiding directors, whom it was impossible to make liable for such transactions, and I hope the defendant has not consented to pay a penny. On anbther day one of the Courts was crowded with Royal Academicians anxious to hear the trial of an action which was brought against Mr John Rogers Herbert, one of their number, to recover possession of a picture, which had been seized by him under remarkable circumstances. Two men by the names of Bryant and Rumball, who said they were picture dealers at Kilburn (a northern suburb of London) and Birmingham came into possession of a picture on which Mr Herbert’s name had been put. They thought it was one of his early works and took it to him for his opinion, but he declared the picture to ba a forgery, and refused to give it back to the owners unless they gave him a guarantee either to obliterate his name or not to deal with the picture. They refused to do either, and moreover went so far as to assert the picture to be a genuine one, and to say that Mr Herbert himself was doubtful on the point when he first saw it. The defendant swore that lie never painted the canvass, and several of the most eminent Royal Acrdemicians described the picture as a spurious daub, utterly worthless, and a palpable forgery. The jury found as their verdict that the painting was worth £10 —it would hare been worth much more if it were a genuine Herbert, but the Judge refused to make any order for its restoration.