The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-25 00:00:00

manager, when the &et thing .he did was to .make a
searching iaves:tigatinUinto the affairs of tho bank, and
what he and his broth§r •lirectore did to retrieeo its posi-
tion, and iivitmed Mr. Cameron and Mr. BrePen
to leave the bank, was brought against him to prove con-
spiracy. The learned gentleman referred to the hoetit poous
system of Scotch banking, which had the effect of mysti-
fying every (MO, and the instruction that Mr. Cameron
gave to one of the clerks, not to supply information
to any of the directors, and called upon the jury to
discriminate between imprudent conduct and guilt. Mr,
Esdaile had lost everything, and if he had hal a crimi-
nal intent he would have no doubt protected himself.
Mr. Slade, Q.C., addressed the jury for Mr. Owen.
The learned counsel said that Mr. 0 wen, after
20 years labour as a humble tradesman, had acquired
a competency, which he was induced, through Mr.
Mullins, his pri rate solicitor, to embark in the
Royal British Bank and the reselt was that Mr.
0 wen had been deceived. That gentleman when he
took his seat at the board found himself surrounded by
M.P.'s and men of high standing in the commercial
world, and considering the omnipotence of Mr. Cameron,
it was not to be wondered at that Mr. Owen was in-
duced with others to believe that the bank was in a sol-
vent and flourishing condition. The learned gentleman
then analysed the evidence, and contended that there was
not the shadow of evidence against his client to prove
that he conspired with any of the defendants.
Mr. Huddleton, Q.C., addressed the jury for Mr.
Humphrey Brown. lie said he could not conceal
from himself that his position was one of considerable
disadvantage, having none of those topics which his
learned friends had so powerfully used to beget for their
respectable clients the attention and to appeal to the
sympathies of the jury, from their being in a position to
represent them as having to the last no direct interest in
the monetary transactions of the bank. He had at the
outset to admit that Mr. Brown had availed himself of
the resources of the bank, and that be was a debtor to
the bank to a large extent. He was also painfully con.
scions that there existed, not only in the jury box, but
elsewhere, a prejudice against his client, which, how-
ever, was not altogether innatural, and which
he could not complain of, because he had
brought it on himself, but what he did ask the jury was
to guard themselves against pr.-judices, that had been
most unfairly raised against Mr. Brown. He could not
believe from whateversource it arose, it would have the
effect of preventing justice being done him by a fair and
impartial investigation of hie case, and he was buoyed
up withthe hope that when these prejudices were pointed
out and explained he should not find the approaches to their
reason entirely closed against his client's answer. The
learned gentleman then entered into the details of the evi-
dence relative to his transactions, and compared them
with the date of his commercial transactions which, he
said, showed that the bank was at all t,ines amply secured.
Mr. H. Prown had raised himself to a competency by
his industry and probity. He had received the highest
honours from the inhabitants of his native town, and he
joined the bank with the "modest fortune" of 20,0001.
He denied that the prosecution had produced a tittle of
evidence to prove that Mr. Brown had been guilty of
the crime with which he was charged.
Mr. Lawrence, on behalf of Mr. Mc Leod, next ad-
dressed the jury. He said that his client was a member
of a very anoient Scotch family, sad his father had yes
years represented in Parliament the county of Ross.
He was a young man, and moreover a barrister,
when he became connected with the Royal British Bank
he was unacquainted with banking transaotione, and his
connection with the bank arose from lei., marrying Mr.
Cameron's daughter. When he joined the bank, its
affairs were represented to him as being most flourishing,
and seeing the bank surrounded with all the appliances
of affluence and solidity, he believed it to be in a solvent
state. The consequence was that, believing in the
truthfulness of the assertions of the father of his newly
wedded wife, he invested 5,0001. in the bank, and toot
his seat at the board. It was the most absurd thing
possible to charge Mr. M‘Leod as being a conspirator,
for to be a conspirator to defraud the members of the
bank was to defraud himself. The learned gentleman
referred to the evidence that bad been adduced on the
part of the prosecution to establish the charge of con-
spiracy to defraud, and contended it bad entirely failed; its
tendency, if not its proof, being that Mr. M`Leod had
assidtzlously attended to the discharge of his duties for
the general benefit of the shareholders and depositors
in the Royal British Bank.

Mr, D. Seymour then rose to address the jury on
behalf of Mr. Cameron. He said they were now
approaching the last scene of this eventful and
extraordinary trial, and it would soon be their
duty to pronounce, by their solemn verdict, whether
the Crown had made out the charge that the
several defendants combined together, and conspired
together in an unholy league for the detestable object of
publishing false statements and entrap the unwary, or
whether it was not a case in which a distinction should
be drawn between criminality and too sanguine hopes.
If every counsel who had addressed the jury had ex-
pressed their sensibility of the responsibility under which
they were placed, and to ask from them their conside-
rate and calm indulgence, it was he (Mr. D. Seymour)
who had most cause to a-le for that indulgence. His
was, indeed, a painful task, for he had to defend
a man who, from the commencement of the bank to its
stoppage had been the single object against whom every
attack bad been made, and in whose single person was
crowded together calumny and suspicion by those
who, instead of confronting the evidence by fair argu-
ment, had, up to the last moment, attempted to vindicate
themselves, and effect their deliverance by the sacrifice
of his client. He complained of Sir F. Thesiger having
introduced in his opening statement charges against Mr.
Cameron of fraud that only existed in the learned gen-
tleman's brief, and which had produced a sensation in
every one who heard it stated, They would recollect
how he spoke of that unhappy man (Mr. Brunton)
having been induced by Mr. Cameron to
withdraw his savings, and invest them in
this bank, on the ground that it was as safe
as the Bank of England, but where was Brunton, and
why had he not been called! It was a point that was
much dwelt on, and when he (Mr. D. Seymour) heard it
that day for the first time, he confessed he trembled for
the iitsfety of his client, but the case was over now, aid
this moving story had turned out to be a nullity. There
was something however in it, and that was to show the
jury how much care was necessary to draw a distinction
between prejudice and proof. He had also to complain
of every counsel, from Sir F. Kelly (except Mr. Sergeant
Shee) downwards, having either by an open charge or
by inuendo thrown the responsibility from the shoulders
of their respective clients to those of Mr. Cameron. He
then referred to the course of banking that had been
pursued, and in reference to Mr. Cameron discounting
billy, said that by the charter a discretionary power was
invested in the managing director to discount bills after
' the finance committee had left, and it would be a strange
thing if a manager could not do such a thing on an ewer-
gooey after the committee had ceased Wait. Hedenied that
friendly relations were broken off between Mr. Cameron
and the other directors at the time stated, and he quoted
from a letter to show the friendly manner in which they
addressed him up almost to the time of the stoppage
of the bank, and in reference to Mr. Stapleton
he said that up to the 12th of July, 1856,
Mr. Cameron and Mr. Stapleton were on such friendly
term; that the former introduced the latter to the ban-
quet given to the hero of Kars at the Reform Club. The
hank, the learned counsel said was not projected by Mr.
Cameron, but by Mr. M‘Gregor and Mr. Mullens, at a
time when Mr. Cameron was carrying on his business as
a Parliamentary agent in this country. The learned
counsel then proceeded to examine minutely the evidence,
and in conclusion said that Mr, Cameron's desire had
ever been to promote the advancement of the bank,
and so disinterested was his conduct that he had three
of his sons in the bank without salary. Mr. Cameron's
account was stated at 36,0001. but the learned counsel
reduced it to 23,0001., and said by calculation it ought to be
reduced to 17,0001., out of which there should be de-
ducted 10,6001., for which he had made himself respon-
sible in taking up the shares of the bank. Such was
Mr. Cameron'. confidence in the stability of the bank
that just before its stoppage he proposed to increase his
stake in it, and it was not likely that a man of substance
would have risked it in an insolvent concern, with a
knowledge of that fact. The learned counsel read cer-
tain portions of a correspondence in connection with the
debts of the bank, which he said showed that Mr.
Cameron was acting by the direction of the board in
reference to them. It was impossible for Mr. Cameron
to have published a balance-sheet and report without
the consent of the directors, and he asked why the
auditors had not been called who audited what had been

termed the false balance-sheets..
The following evidence was then called for tho defen•

dents :
mined by Mr. Bovill, said
Sir Alexander Matheson,
raefthemember
British o firmffiEtnzaun
keexamined
of
England,
abgr Alexander
aed,aoa Matheson,
wm .opf .
t
l
of the defendants. He bad
tdhhiere director
sverness burg .
Hon.now J.
Mr. Stapleton, Cameo e o kle
root i nyn ecin lsBc3o9t a
nlVd t ni‘ei ere. acnadmheirs fna
then il
possessed large. Pf).
most influential man in the county of Ross ; and
theigs wait eshs
eentruiroa
lerhaet7ccil thbye
Mr. offices,camaelrreenad. y
Hgiveehnaidn
metthe
course of t
Mr. Cameronmateo;nhseeghaoeueseees ofef some
Cameron's
etrhoenb,seisat
intimation
in Scotland,
to him, he recommended Mr. Stapleton, in June, 1855,
to join the bank. Mr. Cameron at that time thought
his joining would be desirable, because they
wanted a west-end director. They met at wit-
ness's house to dinner, and Mr. Stapleton after-
wards became a director. He never doubted
from his opinion of Mr. Cameron that his representa-
tions of the flourishing state of the bank were correct.
He had the greatest c4nfidence in him. Mr. Cameron
produced a balance-sheet, but witness did not enter into
the details. In August, 1856, he received a letter from
Mr. Stapleton, stating there was a run upon the bank,
which made him very uncomfortable, and express-
ing his belief that if some person of known
wealth could be induced to take shares in the bank its
affairs would be retrieved, and that publio coLfidence
would be completely restored ; he also asked me in the
eellar if, after one of his witness's partners had examined
the books and satisfied himself of the state of the bank
and that there could be no risk in his taking shares,
whether he would take them ; he added that he thought
Witness being a director would put all right. The letter did
notreach him in duo muse of pot, but on the day of thei