The Sun.
London, England, 1823-09-19 00:00:00

BANK MEETING.

Yesterday a Court of• Bank ,Proprietors was,
held for the purpose of declaring a dividend for the next halt'
year. The Court was fully attended. The Clerk having read
the minutes of the last Court,
The CITAIRMAIT stated. to the Proprietors that the Court of
Directors having duly considered the present state of the af-
fairs of the, Bank,•thought proper to- recominend that a divi-
dend of four per cent. should be declared for the half year next
ensuing. '

A Itisolution to this. effect.was then read to the Court.
Mr. GUNDRY said he then considered it his duty to ask a
few questions • but before he did so, he should hand a docu-
ment to the dairman, which he desired should be read.,
[The paper, which was in substance a demand that the ac-
counts of the profits of the Company, and the expences of ma-
nagement should be submitted by the Court of Directors to the
Proprietors, was then read. It was signed by Mr. Grundy and
Mr. Selwyn. At the request of Mr. Grundy, the bye-law and
the 63d section of the Act of the 7th of Queen Anne, respecting
the Courts of Proprietors., were then read, but in so indistinct
a voice, as scarcely to be intelligible. We understood, how-
ever, that they declared that the half-yearly Courts should be
'held for the purpose of examining the state of the affairs of the
Bank, and upon those affairs stating a dividend.]
Mr. OUNDRY contended both upon the authority of the bye.
law and that of the Section,. that the Court of Directors were
bound to make to the Proprietors a statement of the affairs of
the Ccnnpany, 'and that it wee for the purpose of " examining
into" those affairs that the Court was, now assembled according
to the Charter. Every Proprietor present sat there as a part--
ner, and as such had a right to examine those accounts in.
which his interests were involved. They were not there for
the purpose of hearing the, Chairman say,' " Sic cola, sic
jubco, stat pro rations voluntas ;" declare a dividend, and then
disperse them. No, they.met:not there for the performance of
any such farce, but to exercise their judgments on their own
affairs, which they had a right -to examine. He, therefore,
called on the 6ourt of Directors to give to the Court of Pro-
prietors not a minute detail' or exposure of their transactions,
but a balance sheet, which would enable, them to judge of the
state of their affairs, and to declare such a dividend as they
should think proper, after an examination of existing circum-
stances. Those who with him before came forward, would
now support the measure, and it would now. be with the ma-
jority fo say whether the system should continue any longer.
Mr. Y'OU'NG said, that the last position .of the Hon. Proprie-
tor, that the exposition of their affairs depended upon the, will
of the }majority, was certainly correct:* It 'would depend on
the good sense of the majority whether thejwould or would not
support the motion before them. The majority had gone on in
a system of confidence which was equally, honourable to the
Proprietors And the Directors, and he thought it was for the
interest of the Company, as well as of the public, that they
Should still continue to act on this honourable basis. But he,
for one, mustdeclare that his confidence had been considerably'
shaken by occurrences of the last twelve months. He alluded,
to the diminution of their dividend, and the ronduct of the
Court of.Directers on that occasion. From the reduction of
the rate of discount, a diminution of their profits might be ex-
pected, but he considered. that measures of so. important a.
character ought not to have been taken without some,previous
notice, or. some reason given that would justify the confidence
reposed in the Directors., lie had, when the . important.
measure of the reduction of the rate of • discoant was pro-
posed,
,put a 'Question to the Chairman whether this reduc-
tion of their profits was made up by an increase of business, and
he received for answer, that the Court of Directors, upon a cow&
deration of these matters, and of the whole of their affairs, thought
proper to recommend a dividend of 3
.per cent. The Honour.
able Proprietor then complained of the refusal which he said
the Proprietors met with whenever they sought information of
such vital importance. Unless the practice was altered, the
confidence placed by the Proprietors InDirectors, which had
hitherto been an complete, must be shaken. He wished to
know whether the dividends were declared upon the present
profit, or whether ,from a consideration of their. future, as well
as piCOOnt, C1T,M1L•J5A616,...1 11. 11. a 41. •••
to, the. Directors:; it-was, in muliitanie, that all the Minutes of
the Court of Directors, or the Substance of every Resolution
entered into by the Directors for the declaration of dividends
for the two years, last past, should be laid before the Court of
Proprietors. He was quite willing to wait for their production
till the next Court, but if it should appear from them that the
Directors last year, when he put the question to them—whether
the decrease.ot- their profite.wai made up by an increase of their
business ? had it in contemplation to reduce their dividend, his
confidence (we understood the Hon. Proprietor to say) would
be greatly diminished. The only mode of restoring that confi-
dence would be the production of the Minutes, ILO clear answers
as to their real situation.:

Mr. Ginwity insisted upon the right of the Court #Q inspect
their accounts. The terms Of the advertisement calling them
togetherhad lately been =rowed, They, were formerly ~ to
con Sider the state and condition of the Company's alfairs.;"
now it ran 44 19 consider of a. dividend." The Court Were ol-
way; treated with contempt and hauteur, and not made ac,
quainted with'the changes that took`place. one DirectOr,:Mr.
Turner, had resignedtand for a halt yearn° intimation of that
was riven to the ProprietOrs.
The Ci.i.tp.stax. said, Mr. Turner had gone out by rotation.
Mi. G i: s nit-i said, he" had then been iiiisinformed ; but
on the most important occasions, there was:a lack 'of. infornia::
tion on the part of the Proprietors, who were treated with in in-
tolerablecontempt. What was the totnWet of 'other. COmpa-
nies on similar occasions ? Hi was formerly a Proprietor. of.,
India Stock, but he hold it, because he was so pestered by ap-
plications resP,Sqing his vote and! interest.—(Laughter, and
cries of "hear !")—lt was noW necehietry to 'make a stand
against the conduct of the Directors. He understood, that in a
work writtefihy one 'Chantillon, the author,' in speaking of the
affairs of. the Dank of •liiigland; mentioned, that it was their
custom to' examine their accounts at each lialf.Vearly Conn.—
! Surely, an author of credit would not have made such an as-
, tertion if it, were not notoriously true. The,lionourable Pro-
!. prietorheiought the Proprienni present to consider the interest
of those who were absent. The number ,of Proprietors had.
been estimated at five thousand—some were in Yorkshire, many
' were foreigners; others were widows and- spinsceri, and none
of these could be brought there to vote, or the present system
could not stand. '
Mr. S. Dicizsoli said that every elucidation of their affairs
that Could be given with propriety ought to be given.---Hut he,
as a Proprietor, would strenuously oppose any full expesition•
of the state of thiir affairs being. made public. He theught,
however, there were some expositions which might be safely':
Made to the proprietors at large. For instance, how easy would
it have been, when the half-yearly: dividend, at the last Court,
was reduced to 4 per cent. to have stated, as theround of the
measure, the decrease: of .the profits, 'by' the reduction of the
rate of discount from 5 per cent, to 4 ; the state of Zxcitequer
Dills, the necessity which the Company had beenunder to keep
their promise. with the public, by the return to cash payments;
the arnuigementirmide with regard to the payment Ofpetilioni ;
and other matters by'which the profits of the COlPPaity had been
materially
.diMinislied. Information of this nature would give
general satisfaction. .. .
'The CllAlnm.sk said, that the reduction of the rate of dis-
count, the price of Exchequer Bills, which were now at !Wit
premium, sliewing so great a want of employment for money,
were really things- so notorious and so obvious, that the Direc-
tors consul it quite unnecessary to make any such statements.
The ination 'that 4 per cent:' Should be the dividend for the
next half-year was about to be put, when
Mr. 61:1;Dlir again rose, and asked the proprietors whether
they would be content to declare a reduced dividend without
any explanation or ' knewledge of their ' accounts ? To resist
this he would now move, as an amendment, that the dividend
for the next half-year should be 5 per cent.
This Motion was'sedonded by a Proprietor, whose name we
could not learn.
-Mi. !VoliSto, pressed an answer to the questain, which he
had put„, as to the declaration of the dividends.
C
The HAIRMAN said, he could only state that the Court of
Directors thought Proper, after a mature ednsideration of the
present state of their affairs, to -propose a dividend of 4 per
cent. The Coast of Directors undoubtedly had not the power
oflookinginto futurity.
Ail% Y00).f0 asked, whether there were no minutes orreso-
Intions entered into by, the Directors before they undertook so
imertitin a, measure 7 . • • ! • •
Ste CIIAIIINAN repeated his former answer.
Mr. GuNDItY addressed-the Milt,. upon 'his last motion,
and besought them, for the sake of humanity, to defend those
who were absent to protect 'theinterests'of orphans and widows
who perhaps had. only 501.' a:lear,! which stun the Court bad,'
Without an account or explanation, reduced last half year to
401. 04 which might herafter be TetitiOM to 30/. Mir' mintier

equally arbitrary and unjustifiable. lie regretted that the re.
gulations would 'not permit Counsel to be heard in their behalf,
of he could have given special retainers to the first lawyers in
the kingdom.
A PROPRIETOR asked the Chairman, whether' the Resolu-
tion for the 'proposal of the dividend of four
.per cent. to the
Proprietors had been agreed to. unanimously in
.the Court.of
Directors ?

A DIRECTOR here rose, and protested against such ques-
tions. He had no hesitation in answering, that this dividend
had been agreed to unanimously, but he must object that such
questions strictly ought not to be put.—(General cries of 44 cer-
tainly not.")
Mr. YOUNG said he was perfectly willin to waive his re-
quest for the production of the Minutes of the Court of Direc-
tors until the next Court day.
The CHAIRMAN again declared that the Dividends were
proposed only after the most mature consideration.
Mr. YOUNG said he only wished to know whether the Di-
rectors, when they made the reduction in the rate of discount,
contemplated a reduction of their dividends.
The Citaiitma.N, we believe, answered in the negative.
A PROPRIETOR objected to this colloquial mode of con-
ducting the business of the Court:
Another PROPRIETOIt defended. it as a means of obtaining
information. With respect to the Court of Directors, he must
.say, that he for one would never surrender his judgment to
any set of men. The most serious injuries were suffered from
the present system, and inquiry ought not to be given up, with-
out a struggle. He would mention as an instance of the injury
'often done to those who.had no advocates, the case of tenants
for life, who
.by a decision upon the appeal to, the House of
Lords---a decision which all lawyers regretted as erroneous,
were deprived of the benefit of Lowly; to which it was de-
dared they were not entitled. His mouth should never be
shut whenever an attempt waimade to stifle inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN denied that there was any wish to stifle
inquiry.
Another PnovnIETOR rose, and 'deprecated the practice of
rendering inquiry useless by withholding proper information.
The Proprietors were not assembled there like a flock of sheep
to be driven or intimidated by any one who said " Bali" to
them. It was now time to consider whether this close system
of " hugger mugger" ought to be continued. The Court was
assembled to consider the interests of all, of whom many were
orphans and widows. The Act of Anne and the by-laws had
been treated as obsolete, but they never could become so any
more than justice' and humanity. He liked a bonus of 25 per
cent. very well, but he objected to the principle 'of the listribu.
tion, because in the same manner they might have a thaliii or a
whim. He treated the infallibility of Directors as he did the
infallibilty of the Pope, with:contempt. Until some ground
was shewn for the acquiescence of Proprietors, he should oppose
the mere 'dicta of the Court'of Directors.
The CHAIRMAN said, he believed it was never known that
the accounts were submitted to the Court of Proprietors. The
Governor and Court Of Directors were determined in their pro-
ceedings by the ballot, which had invariably sanctioned their
practice.

Mr. GURNEY (the Barrister) observed, that the Court of
Directors said, " 'We in our discretion think' that; this dividend
ought to be declared." This discretioti has been sanctioned by
numerous Courts, and was not yet questioned by a decision
upon-any measure. So long -as the dividends were large, the
Proprietors were content and merry, but when they were re-
duced; the Proprietors began to change the posture of their
features, and to grumble. .He bad the same confidence as be-
fore in the Directors. •

The Amendment that the dividend should bellper cent. was
then negatived by a large majority, and the original motion
vas carried.—The Court then broke up.

DEATH BY LAU DA N UM.

The attention of Mr. TEILLING7 the Coroner
•
was occupied on Wednesday evening last, at the King's Arms
Tavern, NVoorlatock.street, Marylebone, inquiring 'by what
means Martin Jordan, Esq. aged 70, came by his death.
,orriXte§iSritavi;AgatinVP4 indeMiet fgninaN
•he enjoyed every coMfOrt.' "14°' •
The first witness examined was John Keenan, Esq. of No. 1.5,
Charles-street, illarichester-square, who deposed as follows :
That he had known deceased upwards of 30years. The nightpre-
ceding his death, which was Illonday night; he saw deceasedat his
apartment in Westmoreland-street; he was at the time apparently
pretty well- He had been in the habit of visiting deceased lately
when he was ninth afflicted with. the gout ; 'that, combined with
medicines taken for the purpose, he considered had operated
Upon the deceased's mind, and produced a kind of nervous ar-
fection Deceased had for some years been afflicted with that
dreadful malady the gout, and more particularly (hiring the
last twelve months, when he has suffered a great deal in the
limbs, and been scarcely able to go out. Deceased had, for his
recovery, taken mediemes yarioux kinds ; sometimes one
person' prescribed one thing, and then another person something
different. These; In his opinion, had an clfeet of disturbit%
the nervous system. Ile'laboured under great affliction in
consequence of his complaint, and which; in witness's opinion,
might 'have operated upon his mind ; this has been' more par-
ticularly during the last mix months; but several medical gen-
tlemen have attended him, and he has also had the best advice.
Some short time sinee the witness was afflicted -with illness, and
the 'deceased inquired what he then did to'obtain rest.- The
witness replied, he had for the
Tuesday morning witness was sent or, being informed deceased
was taken very ill. He instantly went, when, upon Inquiry,
purpose taken opium. On.
he found the deceased had taken laudanum, the effects of which
he was then labouring unilei. It was then considered, that by
some means lie had got out, unknown to his friends, and pur-
chased the laudanum which he took in the night. The wit-
ness remained with him until, half-past four in the after-
noon, when he died. The witness further said, that for kind-
ness, good care, and comfort, it was impossible for deceased
to reeftve more than he did from his wife and family.
. .

. . ..._ ..___ . _ .
A Juror inquirc'd whether 'he' he had any eonVersatAM with
the deceased While he remained with him on Tuesday.
The witness replied in the negative, alleging he was quite
insensible, and in the agonies of death. ''
Mr. Parker, of 14, Edward-street,Portman-square, surgeon
and apothecary, said, 'lie had attended the -deceased for some
time before his death ; he was suffering much from gout, but
otherwise enjoyed, excellent health. Abort two days before
his death he attended deceased pt'Ofosionally, but administered
more to his mind thin his body. Nis mind occasionally seemed
much affected ; it did not actually approach to derangement,
but a total loss of 'mind. a despondency which was next to
derangement.—Witnesi was not at all surprised that deceased
am
had taken laudanum, fl o' previous knoWledge of his state
of mind. On Tuesday meriting, about ten o'clock, he was
called to attend the deceated. 11e Was first informed by Mrs.
Jordan that he had taken laudanum, and afterwards by, de-
ceased, that he had taken one ounce and a half, and. that any
assistance the witness might attraiipt to render him would be
useless. This was proved in 'the result. deceased dying de-
cidedly
from the effects of the opium: He also informed the
witness that he had procured the laudanum on Thursday last,
in the neighbourhood, and since that time had kept it in total '
ignorance from his family. • • ' '
yl7,imseif. deceased took a
Juror.—Can you say what was the state of his mind on
A Juror inquired -if 31r. parker was aware what medicines
'
the deceased luul been in the habit of taking ?
Mr. Parker replied, he different
was in the habit 'of takin
qusaienkli nlaierdqiucianlietsy but what eftbct that would' have upon the
;.'Wilson's tincture fur the.gout, and others of
a
nervous aystem hie was not aware, not knowing the different
coMpOsitions. ..
French A °
irouedr observed, eacnl,,,i iihleatthien nearlyafewe arksill sedinc
Thursday last, when he purchased the laudanum ?
Mr. Parker said, he could npt.
Juror..-It 'seetiis to me as though it were preconcerted or,
premeditated.
Mr. Parker stated he had 'spoken of his'state of mind in ge-
neral; and which he cdtisidered tO be ati he hail stated. , The
laudanutn he hail takinlwas sufficient to kill three persons.
Another Juryman suggested he might probably-have taken
it with a view to obtain rest.
Mr. Parker replied. OW
want of rest would occasion delirum,
but his nerves were quite shook.
m it jury,
utiou drill; took ii'view of the body ; and on their
return— .
The COUONER said, there
the seems to be nodoubt the deceased
took the laudanum himself.; oplyqu ; 'c'ti Was, the state of
mind he was in.
The Jury were of opinion he labonted 'under delirtint, and
returned the following, verdict i.---" ,That the deceased, Martin
Johlan,- Esq.,' thellin 'consequence of taking latidantiminteis:.
tionally to
;destroy himself;. but that lielaboured under. a state
oftbental deratigenient at" the time."