The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-12 00:00:00

Is that the only answer yon give to that question?--That
is my answer.
Can you pledge your word that no such loans were ob-
tained ?—I should t link not, from the imperfect recollec-
tion of the circumstance of that day. I should not like to
r pledge myself to any statement that was not coincident
exactly with my recollection. If it had been so I should
have no motive in concealing it, Mr. Linklater—at least I
should give you my straightforward impression.
Do you believe it to be true that loans were obtained on
behalf of the directors, for the purpose to which I have
alluded ? —I do not recollect the circumstance.
Do you believe it to be true ? —I cannot give an answer
satisfactory to myself to that question.
Again I must ask you, do you believe it to be true ? Pray
attend to the question—do you believe it to be true ?I do
not wish to attribute your hesitation to any unwillingness
to answer.—Not at all ; I am only considering what an-
swer I can give truthfully.
I must have an answer to that question.—l have no re-
collection of the fact.
That is no answer.
The Commissioner—What is your belief upon the sub-
ject. If you have no belief one way or the other, of course
you will say so.—To be very candid with you I have no be-
lief upon the subject. My mind is a blank upon the subject
entirely. I have no belief.
Having your attention drawn to the circumstance of the
two cheques which you say you sigrrd ?—Most clearly I
have signed those cheques.
The Commissioner—Does that bring it to your recollce.-
tion ?—No, it does not.
Does it bring it to your recollection as being connected
with the bank ?—I do not know whether any of my bro-
ther directors are present, but it loss not occur to my own
recollection. If it did, I would say so without scruple and
without hesitation.
Mr. Lieklater--Lat ue 1.;:ro no mistake as to your mean-
ing. What r ask you is - this. Do you or do you not be-
lieve that the directors borrowed money before the opening
'" _

rectors before the end of the year 1853 ?-4 presume so, it
must have transpired soon after his decease.
Were you present at the meeting of directors on the
13th December, Iss3?—Yes.
And were you one of those who voted in favour of the
resolution that the court was desirous to record their re-
gard for the memory of Mr. Mullens, and their lively re-
collection of his social and many amiable qualities?—So
perfectly were we impressed with the integrity of his cha-
racter up to that time.
Lo you remember a claim being made by a Mrs. Goodrich
to some title-deeds which had been lodged with the bank
by Mr. Mations as security for an advance to himself?—Yes.
The bank afterwards gave up the deeds to Mrs. Goodrich
without a payment of any sum whatever ?—I am not quite
sure as to the fact.
Refer, if you please, to the minute of the meeting of the
directors of 18th April 1854.—That there was a point in
dispute about these sec.nrities I am perfectly well aware.
Were you present at the meeting on the 18th April, 1854?
—No ; it appears not by the record.
Were you aware of the minute of the resolution passed
by the directors at that meeting on the 18th April, 1851?
The Commissioner—Perhaps it was at a subsequent
meeting.
Mr. Linklater—lt does not appear that Mr. Esdaile we s
present for two or three mcetiags after that.
The Witness—I do not see the particulars.
You will. find it there [pointing to a book)—Do you find
on that day a resolution to the effect that the committee
reported to the court that they could not find any evidence
that Mrs. Goodrich had given Mr. Mullane an authority to
deposit the deeds, and they were accordingly directed to be
given up to her ?—Yes; I have no doubt that is correct.
Mr. Cameron was the general manager of the bank at
the time ?—Yes.
We have heard of what has been called small private
led ?ars ?—Yes.
This large green voTame, is this the ledger ?—That is the
pocket ledger.
Timt ea ealled the pocket ledger I—Yee.
Had you access from time to time to that book
never opened it until after I assumed the chair.
Bat did you when you became governor, in February,
1855 ?—Yes.
Had you not prior to that time seen this green book ?—I
do not think it had ever come under my hands. Perhaps I
should hardly say that. I could hardly have been in Mr.
Cameron's private room without having seen it upon his
table, but I never investigated its contents.
Was it a book which was accessible to any director who
chose to look at it, in Mr. Cameron's room or elsewhere?—
It might have been accessible, but it was not the practice
of the directors to refer to it.
Have you any doubt that you have seen it from time to
time in Mr. Cameron's room I—No. I can hardly have
much doubt about that, I think.
Mr. Linklater (to the Commissioner)—Sir, Mr. Noyes is
attending from the Privy Council-office with some of the
original papers. We shall have to go back for one moment.
A certificate is produced, dated Nov. 16, 1849, addressed
from the Royal British Bank, Tokenhouse-yard, Lothbury,
London, to the Right Hon. the President of the Commit-
tee of her Majesty's Privy Council for Trade and Planta-
tions.
Mr. Linklater to witness—ls that certificate signed by
yourself ?—Yee.
By Mr. M`Gregor, the goverapr - .
By Mr. Owen, Mr. Alderman Itennedy, deputy governor;
by William Daniel Owen, a director; Charles William, a
director; James Gwynn, a director yourself; Mr. Kerte,
a director ; and Mr. Apaley, a director ?—Yes.
Is not the representation in that certificate untrue, That
one-half the amount of each share had been paid up in re-
spect of each such share?—lt is n.otuntrue according to our
mode of viewing'the fulfilment of the spirit of the act.
But in fact it is incorrect?—As far as the 00,0001. is not
in sovereigns or bank notes, incorrect.
The Commissioner—With respect to the first, the petition
states, amongst other things, the amount of capital stock
then paid up. That is stated to be 50,C Ili., but it also was
required by the act to say where and how that money was
invested.
Mr. Esdaile—l must refer you to the minute-book of the
court of directors on the 21st of Auguet, 1.819?—It is the
24th. There is no 21st. There is the 17th and 24th.
Mr. Linklater—l am reminded, sir, by Mr. Noyes,
kindly, that there is a certificate upon the ordit referring
it to the law officer of the Crown to consider.the prayer of
the petition. Theeeertificete is to thiseeffefit :—" Report
that the provision of the act ler the regulation of joint-
stock banks appears to have been complied with, and that
my lords are of opinion that a charter may be granted.
Done the 23d of July, 1849." That accords with the re-
presentation that I made to the court,
The Commissioner—Yes.
Mr. Linklater—l believe that the directors had many
promises from persons resident in and near Newcastle to
take shares in the Royal British Bank ?—Yes, I believe
they had.
And that deposits were paid to some considerable amount
from persons resident there ?—Yes, I believe so.
Do you remember that Mr. Alderman Kennedy and Mr.
Cameron have themselves canvassed Newcastle for the pur-
pose of getting shares?—l am aware that Mr. Alderman
Kennedy visited Newcastle with that view.
Were you present at the court of directors on the 23d of
October, lel9 ?—Yes.
Is it correct that on that day it was resolved that Mr.
Mullens be instructed to go to Newcastle for the purpose of
completing a negotiation with the subscribers there who
had not paid their instalments for the transfer of their re-
rtrEeecjtii vnedsstafrzer and
Mullenstat siocrhaa e
tboebderra:tnuranneedl,pilfancelif
Lary, to the subscribers on their completing the transfer of
such shares?--No doubt that resolution was passed.
Then were you present at the meeting of the court of
directors on the 29th of October, 1819 have no doubt
of it, if my name is there.
You have no doubt you were have no doubt of it.
Is it correct, then, that Mr. Mullens reported at that
meeting the result of! his personal application to the sub-
scribers at Newcastle who had not paid up their instal-
ments, and it appeared that 61 of those parties had trans-
ferred their shares to the general manager, in receipt from
the bank of their respective deposits • and 127 of the sub-
scribers were likely to retain their ;hares, some of them
having street), peil their instalments to Mr. Mullens, and
others of them having promised either to pay or secure the
same ?—I cannot dispute the correctness of that.
Then were the shares held by those 64 persons trans-
ferred into the name of Mr. Cameron, the general ma-
nager ?—That I cannot say from recollection.
I should have said 64 shares, and not 61 persons. Do you
find by the register of transfers that on the 26th of Oct.,
1849, there were 49 shares transferred by several persons
at Newcastle into the name of Cameron ?—I have no doubt
of the fact.
And the deposits paid upon those shares were returned to
the persons to whom they were originally allotted—l sup-
so—l believe so.
Were you present at the meeting of the court of direc-
tors of the 21th of August, 1849 ?-eYe''•
Do you find that by aresolution of the court on that day
it was resolved that a cheque be drawn on the Bank of
England for 610/. in order to pay the following sums :
namely, James Dixon, 400/. ; Archibald W. Blane, 100/. ;
John Flemming, 501.; Wm. R. Warwick, 20/. ; Wm. D.
Hay, 40/. ; total 6101., the above being the deposits which
have been resolved to be returned to the depositors who
have refused to sign the deed of constitution ?—That is the
fact. I must admit it.
And that money was returned accordingly ?—I believe
it was. I had reason to suppose otherwise—our efforts to
strengthen the preliminary formation of the bank_through
Newcastle having failed.
Mr. Linklater (to the commissioner)—ln reference to
the act of Parliament, your Honour will find—it being
important the object of my question should be understood,
by the 7th and Bth Victoria, chap. 113, section 5, your
honour will find it is distinctly stated that it shall not be
lawful for companies to repay any part of the sums so paid
up without leave of the lords of the committee.
The Commissioner—Yes.
Mr. Liukleter—To return again to this green pocket-
ledger.
Mr. Yenning—l think it is very important that that
part of the answer should appear. It was a mere substi-
tution, as I understood the witness to state, of the shares
from parties whq would not pay up, and to others who
did let that appear.
The Commissioner—It may appear upon a further quer-
tion, but at present I have only got it that it was trans-
ferred to Cameron.
Mr. Yenning—And from him afterwards to other per-
sons who became the owners.
Mr. Linklater—Perhaps I had better state what the
facts are; and if Mr. Esdaile has any explanation to give
upon it he will he kind enough to correct me if I am wrong.
Several shareholders at Newcastle having refused to pay
the calls made upon their shares, although they have al-
ready paid the 10/. deposit, the company, or rather the
court of directors, resolved that those shareholders should
receive back their deposits from the company, and it then
became necessary that the transfer should be executed to
their own nominee, and Mr. Cameron's name was used for
that purpose. Afterwards the company were successful in
finding purchasers for some of those shares, and from time
to time as purchasers were found, those shares were trans-
ferred to whoever was unlucky enough to take them.
The Witness—May I be allowed to make an observa-
tion ? Yon are not exactly conveying the whole truth with
regard to our communication with Newcastle. It was an
understanding there that if a considerable capital could be
obtained from Newcastle, that the Newcastle shareholders
should be considered to be part and parcel of the corpora-
tion of the bank. If we failed in making a great impres-
sion upon Newcastle, such as had come into the negotia-
tion should not be damnified by any payment which they
had made. It might have been strictly illegal, but it was
fair in spirit I think.
Mr. Linklater—ls there any explanation you desire to
give in reference to those shares ?—No.
I think you have told me that your attention was first
called to the contents of that green ledger in the month of
February, 1855 ?—Yes.
Were you the governor of the bank at that time?—After
the yearly meeting.
After the yearly meeting held in what month?—February.
It would be convenient for us to know on what day of
the month that meeting was held.—The first Friday, what-
ever that day is. The reports will show.
We will put in the date presently. Was Mr. Cameron ill
at the time of that meeting I—l think he was not present
at the meeting.
He was absent from the bank for some time?—No, he
was not permanently absent from the bank until, I think,
after the meeting; be was not at the meeting. And for some
months afterwards he was detained by very serious illness.
He was not at the general meeting at which you were
appointed governor, and he did not come to the bank for a
considerable time afterwards!—l was not appointed governor
at the meeting, it was not necessary. I was appointed go-
vernor by the court.
After you were appointed governor, I think your attend-
ance was more frequent than it had been previously?
Mr. Faddison—lt was the let of February, 1855.
meeting.
February a
ary, and minutes of
the
rrThe court having been sum-
moned to reconsider the resolution passed on Tuesday last,
s jogann_uo-1
rt ny l
wasys
a yin convening
Frespecting the directors to retire in rotation at the annual
Mr.M
r 13 Ps
31st Yenning—Only
ofrid nn
d
meeting of shareholders to-morrow," &c., that is the 31st.
Mr. Linklater—You find now you were appointed go-
vernor on the Ist of February, 1355 ?___Yes.
I think for many months altar your appointment you
were, I may say, unremitting ia your attendance at the
bank 7—l was there very considerably.
sad you occasion to refer to the eeveral account° contained

of the bank for the purpose of having it placed to the Credi
and draw out that money immediately afterwards
have no belief founded upon a recollection of the fact.
I thought we were likely to have some mistake upon
your former answer. I therefore must repeat it. With
or without a recollection of the fact, do you believe that
such a loan was obtained ?
The Commissioner--If you recollect the fact you could
state it. If not you are asked whether there is anything
which enables you to have a belief upon the subject one
way or the other. Your mind may preponderate one way
so as to induce a belief that it was so, or it may prepon-
derate the other way so as to induce a belief that it was
not so, or it may be a perfect blank—total ignorance anal
no belief at all. But it can hardly be supposed you can-
not have a belief one way or the other. You are asked as
to the fact of what is your belief.
Mr. Linklater—lt is by no means an Unimportant ques-
tion. I suppose you have heard it stated as a fact that
such loans were obtained ?—No ; I have not.
I will ask you again. Do you believe that there were
such loans ?—I can give you no further answer than I
have.
Mr. Yenning —Would it not be better to ask the wit-
ness whether he was an actor in the transaction ? It is one
thing to sign a cheque together with two brother directors,
and it is another thing to be an actor alone in the matter.
The Commissioner—lle is asked as to his belief. If he
has no belief at all upon it, let him say so.—That is my
answer.
Mr. Yenning—With great submission the Ctness has
stated that frequently. It appears to me the pressure has
been rather extreme upon that point.—l say again that my
mind is in a blank state with regard to my belief as to that
matter of fact.
Mr. Linklater—We will take your answer as snob. I
observe it is stated in the account to which you have re-
ferred, and which we will mark A, that there were 86
shares allotted to Mr. Cameron, upon which the first and
second instalment would be 4,3001.—1 dare say there were.
Did the directors receive from Mr. Cameron his promis-
sory note for that amount ?—I have no doubt they did.
Did Mr. Cameron ever pay one farthing of those shares ?
—ln money ?
Did he ever pay one farthing of those shares?—l cannot
say that he did, but we held him strictly responsible, be-
hoving that he was able to assume the responsibility of
them. Mr. Cameron was then looked upon as a man of
means, quite equal to that obligation.
There was Mr. Cameron's promissory note for 4,3004, a
portion of what the directors represented as the paid4ip
capital ?—I presume it was so. It states the fact here, and
Nam no doubt that is correct.

Do me the favour to refer to the entry in the minute-
book of the 13th July, 1819.—This is in 1849, I presume.
There is no year to this.
Do you find it there stated that Mr. Mullins reported to
the board that the number of signatures to the deed of
constitution represented 501 shares, a number sufficient to
entitle the bank to make the requisite application to her
Majesty in Council for a charter of incorporation ?--I find
that to be so stated.
In those EDI shares are the 86 shares which had been
allotted to Cameron included ?—That I cannot say. This
gives no information.
Were you present at the meeting on the 13th July,
1849 ?—Yes.
Were you present when the representation to her Majesty
in Council aas laid on the table, engrossed and signed by
Mr. M'Gregor, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Gwynne,
Mr. Hertz, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Apsley Pellatt ?-IVo
should say I was not, or myname would have been inelade'd.
I must have been absent from the room at thattime. Icannot
say so, but it is natural to infer that, or why should my
name be left out?
Were you present at the meeting on the 20th of July
when the minutes of the meeting of the 13th of July .849,
were read and confirmed ?—I have no doubt of it. My name
is here reported.
Before the 19th of Nov. bad the directors of the bank
made a loan to Sir J. M`Kenzie of 7,sCol.?—They did, to
the best of my recollection. I cannot speak to the date,
but myimpression is that they did.
Will you refer to the minute of the 29th of Oct., 1849,
made at the meeting of directorson that day, and say whe-
ther you were present at that meeting when the loan was
authorised ?—I was present at that meeting.
You say you were present at that meeting ?--Yes.
Can you tell me how much had been expended in preli-
linsinary expanses before the 19th of Nov. 1849 ?—I have
not got that in my recollection. It is stated here as 9,523/.
and as it is the result of Mr. Coleman's figures, I presume
it is correct.
Was any portion of that amount of 9,523/. Us. 10d. di-
vided amongst the directors ?—A sum for their services for
the year 1849 was divided amongst them, but really I can-
not say whether it was included in the 9,523/.
I must now ask you distinctly was not a sum of 1,C301.,
which was represented as having been paid for preliminary
expenses, divided amongst some of the directors 7—l be-
lieve a sum about that amount was divided amongst the di-
rectors, but whether they included it in that 9,523/. I do
not know.
Have you any means of ascertaining whether the 1,000/.
so divided was included or not 7—The books must show that.
Then before your next examination you will be able to
ascertain that fact?—l have no doubt I can.
Does your memory enable you to say whether that sum
of 1000/. was divided among the directors for their services
in 1849?-4 presume not long before the bank commenced
operations a year mast have expired before the division
was made.
You presume not long before the bank commenced ?—I
should think not.
But does your memory enable you to say it was that
1,000/.7—This book will give us the fact of the date of the
division.
Perhaps you will be kind enough to find it ?—I am not
contesting the fact of the division, Mr. Linklater. I quite
admit the division was amongst us, if that is what you are.
aiming at.
I am aiming at nothing bsyond eliciting the truth, and I
am not here contesting with you or any one. I am only
desirous of ascertaining the fact whether or not before the
bank commenced business a sum of 1,000/. was divided by
the directors amongst themselves for theirservices prior to
that time ?—That a sum was divided of about that amount
I have fully in my recollection, but whether it wasin Octo-
ber, November, or in the month subsequent to the opening
of the bank, I do not know ; or whether it was included iu
that amount for preliminary expenses, Ido not know. It
might be.
the Commissioner—Does it not appear in the minute-
book ?
Mr. Linklater—No. lam entitled to an answer to my
question. 9,523/. 11s. 10d. is said to have been expended
in preliminary expenses, and the suggestion is that 1,090/.
of that was in truth not a preliminary expense, but was a
sum which the directors took for themselves without letting
it appear in the books at all, and that they divided it
among themselves.— If that was done it was done by a
resolution of the board.

How much of that 1,000/. did you receive?—What my
proportion was Ido not know. We paid a much larger
proportion to our governor of the day, Mr. M`Gregor, but
whether my proportion was 1001., 1201., or 1501., I do not
know.

Have you no recollection about the amount ?—No; I
have not indeed. To the best of my recollection a larger
sum was appropriated to the governor for his expenditure,
his time, and other considerations, and the balance was
divided in equal proportions amongst the men who had
worked through the year of the establishing of the bank.
I think, if you refer to the minute of the 19th of October,
1819, you will find that a sum of 5001. was awarded to the
governor and Mr. M.`Gragor as a remuneration, though an
inadequate one, it is said, for his important services in the
formation of the bank, and that a sum of 6001. was also
awarded out of the fund of the bank to the rest of the
directors in the proportion of their respective attendance
as a remuneration for their services in the formation of the
bank ?—Without reference to the books, I have no doubt
that it is correct.
You have no doubt that it is cm red ?—Not at all.
You were present at that meeting on the 19th of Nov.,
1849?—Yes.
The Commissioner—That is the sum you spoke of ?
Mr. Linklater--I presume that would bo it, 1,1001. I
thought it had been 1,0001.
The petition for the original charter I think was pre-
sented in June, 1849 dare say it was, or about that
time.

You have told me that the bank commenced business on
the 19th Nov. in that year ?—That is the date, I believe.
The capital consisted of 1,000 shares, of 1001. each?—Yes.
Upon which 50,0)01. had been paid ?—Paid, or repre-
sented as paid.
Paid, or represented as paid to the bank, as you have
already stated ?—Ye5.

Mr.'Mullen, I think, was one of the solicitors to the
bank !—Yes.
And he died in 1853 ?—Yes.

In what amount was Mr. Mullet's indebted to the bank
at the time of his death !—I cannot say. The book will de-
clare that. _

About ?—Some thousands, upon which certain securities
of policies were held of his.
Can you tell me what is the total amount of the loss by
the bank through Mr. Mullen' ?—I dare say it was about
8,0001. or 10,0001.
13,000/. was it not ?—I do not know. I cannot say.
At all events, whatever the loss was, it was known to
the directors before the end of the year 1853 ? Not known
before his death.
Not known before hie death, but was known to the di.

in that green ledger?—Very shortly after my appointmen
as governor,
Had you occasion to refer to the accounts in the green
ledger ?—Yes.
a hnaefteyrowna sr adys r shortly,
Ay
most immediately
do
me
dy
aut
emnl
ye mean almost i
afterwards.
m medi-
A few days I—May I explain ?
If you please.—Very shortly after I came to the chair it
occurred to my knowledge that advances had been made,
unknown to myself, upon a class of securities which had
not been hitherto reported as proper securities for the bank
—namely, shipping securities, which led me to investigate
the accounts of certain debtors to the bank, and I was de-
termined that no accounts should exist which were not un-
der my rigid control, and that led me to an investigation
of the accounts.
And that led to an investigation of the accounts through
out the entire book ?—Of this house ledger.
Can you give me the name of the person to whose ac-
count your attention was first directed ?—I have no object
tion. It was Mr. Humphrey Brown.
And it was in consequence of information that you ob-
tained with reference to that account which led you to
examine the contents of that green ledger ?—ln conse-
quence of certain facts having transpired which necessarily
came before me as governor.
Did you find on looking at that green ledger that several
of the directors had accounts opened in the books of the
bank ? Yes.
Give me the names of the directors, if you please, with
whom you found accounts had been opened.—Mr. M'Gre-
gor, Mr. Gwynn, Mr. Cameron, myself, Mr. H. Brown, and
Mr. Coppins. I believe there are no others.
Mr. Walton ?—Yes, Mr. G. Walton.
He was a director at that time ?—Yes.
Did you refer to the minutes of the finance committee for
the purpose of seeing whether those accounts had been
opened by their authority ?—No; I did not think it-neoeo-
earz_to do so.
Was it not one of the regulations of the bank that no ac-
count should be opened except under the precise sanction
of the finance committee?—That was a rule of the bank
that no bills shoal ;I be discounted except by their sanction.
Doyou happen to know it as a faA do not know that that
rule was /strictly observed ; upon the opening and drawing and
discount accounts of the directors themselves it would not
probably have gone through that same routine; for in-
stance, some of the directors' accounts were always largely
in credit, and others had a perfectly legitimate discount ac-
commodation : there is Mr. Charles Walton, for instance,
by whom in fact we have lost nothing. Out of the 16 men
who were connected with that direction I believe three or
four at the outside are now obligants.
Did you find Mr. Cameron was at that time largely in-
debted to the bank ?—Then I found it for the first time.
Did you find then that he owed to the bank upwards of
15,0001. upon his discount account ?—Yes, I remember the
sum.

Will you tell me what is the meaning of this entry—
"To the credit of the account of Hugh Innes Cameron,
Edward Esdaile, May 6, 5031.," ender the head of "dis-
c3unt?"—A sum of money I took from him upon my own
note and retired at maturity; that is the sum of 501.
I do not quite understand that; does not this entry re-
present a discount by the bank on May 6 for a bill ac-
cepted by you for 503/. ?—Yes.
Does not that entry represent that on Feb. 6 the bank
discounted of Mr. Cameron a bill for 503/. ?—Which he
had advanced to me.
Pray attend to the question. A bill for 5001. due May
6, and drawn by him and accepted by you ?—Yes ; it was
upon his promissory note. It was no acceptance of mine.
It was a promissory note of yours in favour of Mr. Ca-
meron ? Yes.
And though Mr. Cameron was indebted to the bank at
that time in 15,030/., you, as governor, allowed your pro-
missory note drawn in his favour to be discounted by the
bank for 500/. ?—No, it is not the fact. It is the same
transaction which commenced on August 16; but instead,
as was sometimes the case, of making the obligation a six
months' obligation, it was the rule of one accountant, why,
I know not, to make it assume the form of a renewal every
two months, which carries it forward therefore to the tim-
that I retired the whole note with interest. It is a continc.
ation of an original transaction, whichlittan on August 16,
1854.
I will begin at the beginning and follow it to the end.
Did you, on the 16th of August, owe Mr. Cameron any
money ?—He advanced me 50/. upon my note. I had never
a drawing account with the bank. That will explain it.
Did Mr. Cameron lend you 5C3/. before you gave bim
your promissory note ?—No, not before.
Did yon apply to Mr. Cameron in the month of August,

1854, for the-linin of 5001. ?—Yer.
Mr. Cameron consented, as I understand you, to make the
loan?—Yes.
For that amount, you gavehim a promissory note payable
in his favour ?—Yel.
And that note was discounted with the Royal British
Bank ?—Yes.
That promissory note was placed to the credit of his dis-
count account, and you received the money by a cheque
drawn by him upon the bank ?—I presume so.
At that time I find by this discount account that he owed
the bank upwards of 15,CDOL—It appears to be so. Of the
account at that time I know nothing.
Did you know that Mr. Cameron was going to get that
5001. from the moneys of the bank ?—host clearly it was a
discount. I never had an account with the bank.
Did you not consider it worth your while to inquire what
was the state of Cameron's account at that time?—No.
Did you know that he had a discount account with the
bank ?—I must have presumed that he had, because there
were notes passing continually through the bank.
I ask you, did you or did you not know that Mr. Cameron
bad a discount account with the bank ?—I think I may
fairly say at that time I did not.
Will you undertake to pledge your word that you did not
know that Mr. Cameron had a discount account with the
bank?—Yes ; I may truthfully say 60 ; at the same time he
must necessarily have had accounts with the bank, because
he was passing large sums of money from Scotland and else-
where.
Did you not know he intended to discount that 5001. pro-
missory note with the bank ?—Yes, I presume that I did.
Did you take any pains to ascertain whether he had ap-
plied to the finance committee for authority to have the
discount ? —No.
Ought not application to the finance committee to have
been made by a person for discount who had previously no
account open ?—lf the thing had been rigorously treated
perhaps it ought to have, but that rule never applied to a
director's account.

Mr. Cameron was no director?-11e was our genera
manager.

He seems to have managed you pretty well. I ask
whether, according to the regulations of the bank, it would
not have brm necessary, in the ordinary course of busi-
ness, for Mr. Cameron, if he had no discount account with
the bank, to have applied to the finance committee for
liberty to have your promissory note discounted?—By the
rule of the bank it would have been necessary in all ordi-
nary cases; but as he knew that I, as a director of the
bank, had no obligations of any kind with the batik, he
presumed, for a transaction of that trivial nature, it was
not necessary. That is the only interpretation that I can
give of it—tor was it necessary in fact.
The Commissioner—lt was not advanced to you by the
bank, but through Mr. Cameron, as agent ?—Because I
had no account at the bank of any kind; I did not even
have a drawing account at the bank, much less a discount
a,:count.

The Commissioner—l mean the bank did not trust to
you ; they trusted Cameron ?—Yes ; therefore it was a
private transac;ion between himself and me—a purely
private transaction.
Mr. Linklater—You knew that Cameron had got that
note discounted by the bank ?—I did not know it, but I
presume that he did ; I have no objection to say that.
Did you communicate to any of your fellow-directory
that that transaction had taken place between you ?—I do
not know that I did at the time, but they knew it after-
wards.

[PRRIE 4113. STAMPED 515

How soon after the 16th August did any of your fellow.
directors know that you had obtained that SCY. of
Cameron ?—Not, probably, until I was examining the ac-
count with them.
In the month of February, 1855 ?—Probably.
That promissory note of SCOI. became due on November
Gth ?—And then it was renewed.
Was it paid by you at maturity ?—No, because it was a
current note; it was a note on demand, I believe.
That is not so. Did not that note for 5001. become due
on the Gth November !—The accountant through whom
the transaction went chose to revoke the advance in this
form as a renewable obligation until it was pail. I took
it up originally. It was a six months' transaction.
Do I understand you to represent that that promissory
note was payable on demand ?—My impression was that it
was so.
And the entry in the book that it was so became due on
November 6th is incorrect ?—That is from Mr. Crawford's
treatment.

And did not appear upon the face of the not ?—I think
not. You will find it so; the same obligation.
Did you on November 7tb, or November 6th, give to Mr.
Cameron a promissory note for 5001. ?—No ; I knew no-
thing about it until I found my cheque for 500/.
Yon gave him no such promissory not3?—No, not again.
Then this cheque incorrectly represents the transaction
when it says that on November 7th the bank discounted for
Mr. Cameron your promissory note, which became due on
Feb. 6th, for 500/I—l should say that it did, if you will
allow me to say at the time I passed my cheque in I said to
Mr. Crawford, "What is your object in making all these
renewals in this way when it is one obligation ?" Turning up
this account I observed the same transaction appeared to be
repeated over and over main, and I said to our accountant,
" What was the object of treating it in that way, when it
is a simple obligation upon a promissory nob ?" and he
said, " Oh, that is our custom."
Do I understand you to say that in the month of Aug.,
1854, Mr. Cameron promised to lend you for six months
the 500/., and that you paid it at the expiration of that
time will not say it was exactly at the expiration of
six months.

When did you pay it ?—I do not know ; it is lumped
together with the 1,5031. in a very foolish way. I have
never paid more than 5C31.
When did you pay it—on the 28th February ?—On the
28th Februlry. . . .

Did you pay any interest to Mr. Cameron on that ad-
vance ?—I presume I did—six per cent. I believe it was.
Presume ! did you ?—Yes, I paid interest for the note.
You say it is 1,9C0/.—ic is incorrect. It is the same as
three renewals.

Then it is three times 5001., but as three times 500/. aro
debited to the account, it Became necessary to put the
figures to the credit of tho same account ?—I disputed it
with him, Vuo form of the transaction.
But you did not pay your 500/. until after it became
known to you and your fellow directors that Mr. Cameron
was so largely indebted to the bank ?—No ; in point of
fact I did uot.
What do you mean, in point of fact ?
Mr. Yenning—lt appears to me that that is a proper
answer.

I mean to say, in point of facL, b'cause I always intended
to take up my note when it became due. It is a most un-
fair imputation. It is making a great deal of fuss about
nothing. It was a simple transaction.
Mr. Linklater—lt will be for others to judge of that
transaction. Is that the first and only transaction you had
with Mr. Cameron ?—Yes.
Was he in the habit of accommodating other directors
in the same way ?—I do not know. I suppose he was. I
think there were discount accounts under the name of Wal-
ton, Humphrey Brown, The books will of course show it.

se liasese.s.e,,,
- esseeevaleeek
-...-
1855, that the bank had lost by re;Cetraeroti upwa 21
,
i,r -'
15,0001. I-That it had advanced t ~,--v *.
-'I say, lost by Cameron I-No, cer Jr amt.
i Do I understand you to represent th aftou hat reauA to
I believe, in the month of May, 1855, when Cameron returned'
to the bank, that he could-pay tbat money when called upon t
No, not when called upon ; but that he had power - .er te•
Icover the bank for his 4.. ligation; and we I.
esecf, to a
recent period, that we had it in our hands, from interest that
he had in land and stock in England. We did not know till
without
p subsequentlyidy osuuebetween
stthatswteoe tngh
ema
tt
a y ,security interestiB 5 , was
farnot M 1
msOtr.
rt
Jan.,.g, ag e d to other parties.
general
ingseentiehraglinactehosiTesnlathidsbfeFfsohre.,lBess6h,
-
In theshareholders Cameron
rwahsso6l
id,
hle-ersalr endeavourmaetso
.amount
the
t ,
Do you find that the acceptations or notes of Mr. 31`Leod, owing from Mr. Cameron so the bank stated to be a good
Mr. Owen, Mr-. Humphrey Brown, and Mr. Hurlston were ' asset of the bank I-It wasgood asset
from time to time passed to the account of Mr. Catieeron ? I take it for granted that knew that fact 2-Yes and I "
. will go further, and say that up to June, 18 • our sOlieitor
-It appears they were,
Mr. Veuning-Will you ask the witness what his object ' was aware that the impression upon our" minscl6B, was that the
in borrowing the was? It will be bnt fair to the wit- I loss through Mr. Cameron from the securities which we be-1
mess that it should appear,
lieved he had would be but trivial. We had the policies in our
Mr. Link later- I shall be most happy to attend to any . hands, and the bank shares, and we knew we bad the interest-
suggestion t
st-
suggestion that comes from you on the part of Mr. Esdaile, lin stock and land, and we likewise believed that be lied. e
and lam sure the court will let Mr. Esdaile explain any- , I must ask you what securities did the bank hold
eeinst
thing he likes upon the subject. I shall be glad to have I that sum of 19,00 a ?-There is a list of them somewhei ',
any explanation he chooses to give of the object he had in I cannot now tell them over my fingers. There were four Oerfivel
view in entering into that transaction.
The witness-It was resolved that the directors of the 1
ts
he ceur
er i twi eass oaf
31:0000001/.., 2,0001. or 3,0001. each. We were told
policy which was to be redeemed from the
day should double the qualification at the bank. It did not ' National Bank of Scotland, and some other securities, but it
snit me at'the time to devote SCOI. from my own resources was afterwards discovered that there were credits upon them.
to the bank ; and I said to Mr. Cameron, " Would it be' In the half-yearly account in June, 1856, was not the debt
convenient to you to lend me that upon my promissory note 1 owing from Mr. Cameron to the bank also taken as a good '
for the time ? and he said certainly, and then it was i
asset 7--I have no
any doubtb t douthat you knew at the time it was so
it was. merely a question of interest between us. The applicationl Have you of the 500/. was to take up my tan new shares.
Mr. Venning-To double your stake in the bank in fact. think not.
taken and so treated in the accounts of the bank I-No, 1 '
I think there can be no doubt about that.
The witness-That is the history of the transaction.
Now I will call our on to the connected
Mr. Li oklater-Did you apply that 5004 for the payment I with the Welsh wory attenti
works. The bank has lost,accounl believe, by be
of 6001. per share upon ten new shares to ba allotted to yon Welsh works, subject to what may be realised from them,
in the bank ? something like 120,0001,-I am afraid so; subject to what is ,
- I
Mr. Venning-I think you will agree with me that it is to be recovered you
fo sa.
not fair that it shorld come
out. In the accountsthe half year ending the 30th of June,
Mr. Linklater-I am not now dealirrs with the effect. I 1 1856, were not those Welsh works taken as an asset of .
am now dealing with the fact.
I--
Independently of being indebted in upwards of 15,C00/.
pendedooo/ Theywere taken at what bad already been ex-
Februupon his discount account, did you find, in the month of
Then in the half-yearly account presented by the court of
ary, that Mr. Cameron was also indebted upon his i directors, and sent to the shareholders by them for the half.
drawing account in upwards of -2,0001. ?-If that is the I year terminating en that day, asl underst: nd you, the Welch
figure representing the date, yes. works were taken as a good asset for the :all amount which
You had better look.-Yes. -•-
illoy cost the bank, about 120,010/.? -I believe they were.
Upwards of 2,000/. 7-Yes. - . We were iu strong hopes of raising a company Under the Li-
,a• I find I' have bean rather misleiaellnryou and" myself -by mited Liability Act for taking these securities off the bank.
referring to February, 1856, instead of February, 1555, as Let us see how that is, When did the bank lrst obtain
to the amount of the overdrawn account. The drawing security over those, mines in Wales?-It would be as far back,
laccount of February, 1855, was under 1 COOl and not, as I think, as 1850. Perhaps my solicitor win' cornea me if I
stated, upwards of 2,00/. 7-Yes. ' •'
wrong.
I find that Mr. Cameron upon his drawing account, was am
Had not the bank in the early part of 1853, made great
indebted to the bank, in the early par;, of February, 1835, efforts, through Mr. Pinniger, their solicitor, to dispose of
in abut 800/. I-More than that. He was very heavy in the mines I-Through Mr. Piuniger t No; I think not.
credit.
Just refer to the minutes, if you please, for the month of
indebl am showing you, notwithstanding, Mr. Cameron was March, 1853, do not you remember the fact, that Mr. Pinni-
ted upon his drawing account, in the early part of ger bad been employed by the directors for the purpose of
February, 1855, to the bank in about 8001., and upon his getting up a public company to take these mines, and that ho
fliscount account to the amount of 15,030/. ; does this book failed to do so I-Yes, I recollect now what you mean, Ho '
correctly represent that although you were governor from did not succeed. February, 1855, doe nto and after June, 1856, you I believe he was employed because the bank thought if they
allowed Mr. Cameron to overdraw his account to the employed their own sslicitor, it probably might become
!amount of 3,9571. ?-I dare say it does, known, and be detrimental to their interest. Was that con-
Does it?-From these figures it appears so.. sidered so?-It was so. I should thick it was a wise conside-
And,
[ although you find in the early part of February, ration.
1855, he was indebted to the bank on his discount account Now having failed in that, they made arrangements, I be-
te be increased so as to leave him indebted to the bank, at lieve, with a Mr. Clark to work these mines I-Yes.
the end of the year 1855, 19,146/. ?--I dare say that Must I think he remained in possession for some months, and
have appeared after he came back and resumed his func- they were then thrown back again upon the hands of the bank?
r[ThLions as manager in May. He came back in May. Will -1-Finding he had not enough of capital he threw them up,
u allow me, it you please to look at that account ? • upon a thorough conviction of their value.
e account was then anded to the witness.] Now, in the year 1854, I believe you instructed Messrs
pThe Commissioner-Was that all solely upon his own Fuller to sell these mines?-They had instructions, but whe-
ersonal credit?-I hat no knowledge of what was going titer in 1854 Ido not know.
on as to the account after that time. After he resumed Now, refer to the minute of the 27th of June, 1854. You
his office, in May, I had no further occasion to check that find, on the'27th of June, 1854, at the meeting of the court of
account beyond a certain amount. directors, the court having considered the miestion as to the
Did you, as governor, or did the Courtof Directors take amount of the reserved
bidding to be put upon the Welsh
any steps, from the month of Feb., 1855, down to the time works at the Auction Mart to-morrow, and as to the amount
Ppf the closing of the bank, kr double the reduction of of the purchase money, which might be left as a security for
auseron'a account?-Repeatedly. the property, and having conferred thereon, it was resolved.
! The Commissioner-I wantto know whether thatl9,C33/. that the reserved bidding on the Park property should be
and odd was advanced upon Cameron's personal security ? 40,000/., and the reserved bidding on the works 30,0001.,
Mr. Linklater-Yes, and that half of the purchase-stoney might, if required, re-
Witness-The transaction came over again repeatedly. main on security of the property. At that time the directors,
Mr. Linklater-But still the balance remains now, Tell I assume, believed that 40,0001. and 30,000 a, making toge-
Cns who is liable for any portion of that 19,1461. except M. Cher 70,000!., was all that they would be likely to get f.r the
ameron, and what securities do the bank hold, if any, mines by sale ?-This is so,
against the 19,1461.?-Mr. Cameron is certainly solely ob- There was no bidder, I believe; at CIA sale 7-No open
!leant for that amount. bidder.
Will you tell me what securities, if any, you obtained I
believe the security given to the bank was to a limit of
from Mr. Cameron for the bank, as against any portion of 50,000/. I-I believe it was originally.
teat account 7-At that time you must remember the bank Can you tell me whether it is or not correct that at that
held shares of Cameron in the bank itself, which before time the bank had advanced upwards of 75,0001. upon the
the failure of the bank were looked upon as good-as so property I-No, certainly not ; I should think it is incorrect.
much security, but to what extent Ido net quite know, Now, tell me, did not Mr. Apsley Peltatt and Mr. Pearce
without knowing what number of shares the bank held of retire from the direction of the bank in consequence of what
Mr. Cameron, which must have amounted to some large they considered the irregularity of the transaction with re-
amount. They were of large amount. There was a policy ference to the funds 7-Not to my knowledge. The grounds
of assurance.
of their retirement were quite different.
t. Mr. Linklater-Were you not aware that by the law the Perhaps you will favour us with those grounds 7-Mr. A.
bank had no right whatever to advance one shilling on the Pellatt had acted as a member of the London Life Assurance
security of its own shares 7-It was not done so. The ad- Office, to which he gave a good deal of time. Mr. Pearce was
Vance, were not made upon thatsecu city, but inasmuch as actively engaged at Lloyd's, and they found their engage-
Mr. Cameron held the shares, of 00t1110 the bank was per- ments were incompatible with the duties which the bank de-
fectly right in insisting upon having them paid over tothem. mended.
Is that how you run a coach and four through an act of I need scarcely ask you again whether in the month of
Parliament? The money was advanced without any secu- May, 1855 you had not yourself come to the conclusion that
city at all?-Without my cognisance or of the directors. there would be a very large lobs about the Welsh mines Withl--
every means of cognisance, if it was not with your We were sanguine that we should he successful in forming a
actual cogntcance?--That is where the lathes have been, no . company to take them off the hands of the bank upon the
doubt. I admit that.
principle of deferred payment by issuing to an
Mr. Linklater-Were you aware that one of the stipula- who would be disposed to take the securities. y public body
tions of the deed of settlement was for preventing the cope- Tell me what means you had taken for the purpose of get-
pany from purchasing any shares, or making advances of ting up any such limited liability company 7-We had been in
money or securities for money, to any person on security communication with a professional man, who said he thought
of shares or share in the partnership business?-Yes. he could manage it for us.
Notwithstanding that, were you a consenting party to Give me his'name, if you please-Mr. Walker. He said he
receiving his securityin respestof Cameron'eaccount shares thought he bad connexions of sufficient power to enable him
stpnding in the name of the company?-No, not as security to construct it,
for any distinct advance.
What Mr. Walker was that ?-A lawyer.
I did not ask you that-Finding the shares, we held Where (hoes he live 7-- them in prope-ty. Ido not know.
Finding the shares, you held them in
Is hero London ?-13e was quite a young professional man,
course. property 7-Of Does he reside in London 7-I believe so.
Wher is he to Then if amongst the documents found in the vaults cf with oure solicitor, be found ?-Ise was originally connected
the bank there appears this : "Hugh Innes Cameron, Esq., Where is be to be found I-At the present moment Ido not
19 Royal British Bank shares, deposited by Thos. Chand- know. You will find a minute upon the subject.
ler, for a loan of 850/., 11th Feb., 1854," it would not be Mr. Linklater-Mr. Paddison can help us. Is he to be got
correct to say that a loan of 850/. had been made upon at, Mr. Paddison?
such shares ?-There is an instance in which Mr. Cameron Mr. Paddison-Ole yes. •He thought he had access to a
seems to have advanced upon shares. You were talking number of wealthy persons of position, Ido not feel at
just now of his own advances. liberty to name those whom lie thought might be disposed to
I have something to ask you presently. take up the whole thing throiteh the strength of their own
The Commissioner-When you say Mr. Cameron knew, connexions,
you mean the bank, I suppose 7-No, I don't; I mean Mr. lam afraid we must trouble yon for their names, as we
Cameron acting for the bank. may hereafter have to test, not the accuracy of whati yol
Mr. Cameron acting for the bank is the bank. What I are now saying, but your mensory-I do not think it would
mean is, was it not your loan with Mr. Cameron ?-It was be right for me to give the names to be brought before a pub-
not with the cognisance of the court, lie meeting, nor do I see the importance edit.
Just refer to this account of Thomas Chandler. Do you Mr. Linklater (to the Commissioner) -I am quite in the
find that the bank discounted for Thomas Chandler on 11th judgment of the court upon the subject.
Feb., 1854, Mr. Hugh Innes Cameron's promissory note for The Commissioner-It is not very material.
E5O/. ?-It appears to be so, but I was.not aware of it. The Witness-With due deference, I think not.
Do you find by the memorandum in this bundle contain- Mr. Linklater-It had been put up to auction in 1854 l-
ing sharem of the bank that for securing the repayment of When I stated that wo were iu hopes of-
that 850/. Thomas Chandler deposited 19 shares in the The Commissioner-I suppose there were some subsequent
Royal. British Bank 7-Yes • it-appears that was a trans- endeavours also taken 7-I did not absolutely dive lute that.
action between Chandler and Cameron. We thought that though that particular instrumentality might
Then I suppose you are now aware that was an sxceed- fail, others would turn up advantageously which would en-
ingly irregular transaction according to the charter of the able us to carry out our view, because a time might come
bank?-Yes, according to the charter, more favourable for the construction of a company neon that
Was Thomas Chandler one of the auditors of the bank ? principle, I did not place much faith upon his particular in-
-He was.
strumentality. He said, I know so-and-so and so-and-so, and
When did you first learn-if you ever did leer.), before I can get access to parties who, I think, will he likely men
this moment that Mr. Chandler ha-I obtained from the bank to take the thing up.
a loan of 850/. for the shares of the bank 7-I suppose the Mr. Linklater-When was that ?-
knowledge must have come to me about the time -I looked before 1856.
through this book. Mr. Paddison-As you hare applied to me upon the sub-
In February, 18557-- I suppose so, jcct, and as Mr. Esdaile has himself stated that Mr. Walker
Did yon get the money from Mr. Chandler 7-No, 'think was, he believed, connected with the bank solicitors, just per_
Mr. Linklater, these shares must be looked upon simply as wit me to state all' that I know upont
for nine
Mr. Walker
a collateral security. The promissory note to Chandler was a clerk of mine in ti e year 1854, nine months ;he
was a simple matter of discount,
left me at the end of those nine mouths, and from that time
That is one way of getting out of the requirements of afterwards to July or August, 1856, I never saw or heard of
the charter. Perhaps you will refer again to the account Mr. Walker; but in either Jul yor Augist, 1856, or some
of Cameron, the discount account of the 3d August, 1554. day which can be got at through a minute you will find in
The Commissioner could there be a discount without any the minute book of the proceedings of the d rectors, it was
other name?
stated to me incidentally that Mr. Walker had been employed
•
Mr. Li oklater-It would be a promissory note payable by the diree ors, for the purpose of getting up a company to
to Mr. Cameron, endorsed by Mr. Chandler to the bank, purchase those Welsh works ; but as to the negotiations with
That I suppose would be the transaction 7-Let me look Mr. Walker, as to the peculiar instrumentality through which
again at Mr. Chandler's account. Ido not see now Mr. he was employed, as to any interview with him upon the sub-
Cameron's promissory note. Mr. Chandler held the pro- ject, I know nothing,
missory note_,_ which was discounted upen the faith, I The Witness -He was introduced to me by Mr. Crawford,
presume, of Mr. 'Cameron. We believed him to be a man our new manager.
possessed of 'freehold property to some extent. Mr. Paddison-He heard of the employment of Mr.
So that it would appear that Mr. Chandler, the auditor, Walker from information which had bean given to him. being indebted to Mr. Cameron, the manager, gave Mr. Mr. Linklater-I must ask you when was it that you had
Cameron, the manager, a promissory note for 850/., which communication with Mr. Walker upon the subject of this
would necessarily be dealt with by Mr. CaMeron, the mans,- company ?-June or July.
ger, and that would be discounted by the bank, and debited Perhaps at the same moment at which the bank closed ?-
to Mr. Chandler, who deposited his security for shares in No ; I should think not.
the bank ; that is the transaction 7-No, I presume not; Had not a-Mr. Thompson been employed by the directors ?
yon are rather mystifying it. Mr. Chandler required'Bso/.; -Yes : he was a civil engineer.
he comes to Mr. Cameron as the actuary of the bank, and Had he not given the Welsh works up as a hopeless task?
says "Will yon a lwance me that moheynpon my promissory -No, be gave it up because it did not afford- believet.h those
note. I can put into your bands as collateral securityshares were his words-sufficient scope for his enterprise. believe
which I hold in this corporation." he wanted to go into the iron trade and the coal tradl
trade.
But as the bank were restricted by the terms of their When did he give it up.f-i do not know • 1854 I suppose,
Ii
you those 'particulars,
charter from advancing money to any person upon the de- His letter exists, wsdahicilhe
will
rkthis minute of the 29th of
posit of their shares, Mr. Cameron was the man who ad- • Just see, Mr.
vanced his money and deposited the shares upon Mr. 1856, willE refresh your memory as to the time when
findthe
FereamnpcaisayWafolkretraki
Chandler's promissory note, and got that discounted with ytuuguhsatd, communication the bank?-Yes, that is how he seems to have managed it. minute of thata day, the 29th August, that the solicitorhadstated
You are examining me upon questions which are purely of he only heard
an executive character which would not necessarily come instructed by.
theesteclo.duarty ttohaftormMr•a
taking the
Welsh works, anel-obseived that this had been done without
privity, and without asking his advice upon the subject,
bef are me as a director.
I -am quite aware that details would- not come before
you as a director, but the general result would though.-
schtioasnutcerasryintowtihdechcomndr.ucptinoufitgheer cinoulrBtsur
annathme two former
efonruminegr
re-
Now, it unfortunately has,
pwv Is eos
rstii
sm
etTahtdoe
Now, referring to Mr. Cameron's account on the 3d of ceutly in 1856, bad been employed for somoarnedtphinret August, 1854, do you find also that the bank discount for gbeeneaeraflermathnraegeeyresatarsteind
ptandadtiatohne,sdibsapnozl, Mr. Cameron ?-For Mr. Brown, do you mean t
Mr, Humphrey try some one else. The solicitor denied the
statement, truth of the For Mr. Mr. Cameron in the month of July, 1854.
Brown's promissory note for 1,000/. ?-It appears to be so. eel managet's and asserted that itw as well known
And does it also appear that Mr. Humphrey Brown lodged to all but the new directors that it had been the policy of the
witth Mr. Cameron shares
usesblonging to Mr. Humphrey Br
ows
bank up to that time to avoid putting forward their own
in he Royal British Bank ecuritiesfor the 1,0001. f -It says solicitor in any attempt to form a company, in order that two
so here ; but it is the first time I have seen thisin the ass book., bank connexion with the works might not be known. Now,
Is it the first time the existence of that deposit as security that minute is signed by yourself as governor 1.-Yes.
has become kaown to you I-Certainly not. I must have And it correctly reports what took place I-Yee.
seen it from my examination of the account originally. lam Now, does that enable you to say whether or not your com-
munication now of those shares as security, munication with Mr Walk • took
say
• probably at tho
Seeing that you permitted the account of Mr. Cameron to month of August las.
t year I-I should think
..
t*ous pend-
increase from the month of February, 1855, to the time when end of July. There were one or two other negona i
the bank closed, both in the discount and in the drawing ac-
counts, ing at that time, •
counts, and no security against it, I ask you have you any Do I understand you now Walker
that you re
presented that
:lace at the end of the
time accounts ending
explanation to give I-No, I have not. In fact I was not aware which you believe to be true when, in accounts
d ^t
of the increment in the accounts until Mr. Cameron finally June, 1856
II e did fool and we were
left the bank. When Mr. Cameron resumed his duties, my to the - 01 !-
inasmuch w- '
amount of 120 00 .
' eventualities would be such as to
attention was then not so positively directed to this account, that the e
prepared to say, that-
inasmuch as I laid down a rule in which I was corroboratedproduce a loss to the hank uP°I!
, You stated the Welsh works to be a goo ass,
with the exercise of all the el
by the directors, that these accounts should not be increased. ldo not want to interfere wi-- 0.
You will instrumental if ou look at the other side in the account, quence of your vocabulary,
that I was in working doto represent that you believe you were
cabulau, but I want an answer-yes or no,
we these accounts- Do I understand you .
Mr. IValton's especially,
Do I understand you to represent that from February, i represented to the shareholdrs that the
June, 18561 Tc". constituted an available asset of the value of
1855, down to August, 1856, you did not once refer to the Welsh mines co
stating the truth when, in the accounts ending the Nth
or
; plain question, and let me have an answer
state of Mr. Cameron's account iu that ledger 1-I. do not-
think I did.?
-It is not a question that I can give a plain
_yes or n° .0,, may have had, and must have had of course,
Then how often between the month of May 1855, and answer tcl.
anxious feelings with regard to what the future would
July, 1856, did you refer to Mr. Cameron's ' ?II w certain wiz
120,000/. ? It ,s a..,
account - o t tl t ‘t b
bout as o ia 'repel y, ut we were not prepared Lo
often I utnnot say, but very repeatedly calling, his attention
bringa there would be a loss before that loss was proved. I
to the state of the account-both myself individually and the say that. committee appointed for the purpose. therefore cannot give you a yes or no answer. I can only give
Did you not find the account increasing from time to time I You such an answer as is present to my own mind.
I must ask you, Mr. Esdaile, upon the obligation of t, o
-No, decreasing. You will find, if you look to the acconnt
that the 15,0001. was reduced down to 12,000 a, and then it oath you have taken, whether, on the 30th of June, 1856,
and you believed the Welsh mines to be of the value of 120,000/.
went up to 13,0001,, and then it went down to 12,0001.;
Do not hesitate so long.-I am obliged to hesitate, because at
so on.
Excuse me. In May he comes back.-7" 1"-
y 1855, it that time wo were in confident hope that we might make
was 12,0001 reduced from 15,000/. This was P Obligation arrangements by which the property, would be redeemed, that
running at the time which had to be renewed,
which of course that those advances would be redeemed.
Had not Mr. Denali been in communication with the
Then it was not reduced ?-No; but there is some expla- bank
raised it to 13,0001. in reference to the sale of these mines ?-Years before.
What do you call years before-1855 I-No, 1852.
F
I suppose you g a ,
nation with regard to that.
i_vh_,o4.,,,v the mont,b, of May, Mr, Paddison-1852 or 18531-The mines had not been
jneamro _!.. - -

'—Some time, I suppose,