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

LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, _MARCH 12, 1857.

Is that the only answer you give to that question?--That
is my answer.

rectors before the end of the year 1853 ? presume so, it
must have transpired soon after his decease.
Were you present at the meeting of directors on the
13th December, 1853 ?—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. Mullens 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 securities I am perfectly well aware.
Were you present at the meeting on the 13th April, 1851?
—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, 1831?
The Commissioner—Perhaps it was at a aublequeut
meeting.
Mr. Linklater—lt does not appear that Mr. Esdaile was
present for two or three meetings after that.
The Witness—l 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 cou!d not finl 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.

Can you pledge your word that no such loans were ob-

tained ?—I should t hink not, from the imperfect recollec-
tion of the circumstance of that day,. I should not like to
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 t 3 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 ? Ido
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 anvver to that question.- -I 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 signed ?—Most
have signed those cheques.
The Commissioner—Does that bring it to your recollec-
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 directsrs are present, but it does not occur to my own
recollection. If it did, I would say so without scruple and
without hesitation.

We have heard of what has been called small privat.
led ,ers?---Irea.
This large green volume, is this the ledger ?---That is the
pocket ledger.
That is called the pocket ledger 7—Yes.
Had you access from time to time to that book !—I
never opened it until after I a3sumed the chair.
But did you when you becaine governor, in February,
1855 ?—Yes.

Mr. Linklater—Let us have no mistake as to your mean-
ing. What I ask you is this. Do you or do you not be-
lieve that the directors borrowed money before the opening
of the bank for the purpose of having it placed to the credit,
and draw out that money immediately afterwards ?—I
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 loa,u was obtained ?

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 cottid hardly have been in Mr.
Cameron's private room without having seen it upon his
table, but 1 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.

The Commissioner—lf 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 and
no belief at all. But it can hardly be suppo.ed 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.

Have you any doubt that you have seen it from time to
time in Mr. Cameron's room !---No. I can hardly have
much ~oubt 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,
Lindon, 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 ?—Yes.
By Mr. M`Gregor, the governor ?—Yes.
By Mr. Owen, Mr. Alderman Kennedy, deputy governor;
by William Daniel Owen, a director; Charles William, a
director ; James Gwynn, a director ; yourself ; Ur. Kertz,
a director ; and Mr. Apsley, a director ?—Yes.
Is not the represen'ation 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 not untrue according to our
mode of viewing the fulfilment of the spirit of the act.
But in fact it is incorrect?—As far as the i-,0,000/. 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 50,000/., but it also was
required by the act to say where and how that money was
invested.

Mr. Vanning —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—He 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 witness has
stated that frequently. It appears to me tho pressure has
been rather extreme upon that point.—l say again that my
mind is in a blank state with regard to my belief al to that
matter of fact.

Mr. Linklater—We will take your answer as such. 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 aad
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-
lieving that ho 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 4,300/., a
portion of what the directors represented as the paid-up
capital ?—I presume it was so. It states the fact here, and
I have no doubt that is correct.

Mr. Esdaile—l must refer you to the minute-book of the
court of directors on the 21st of August, 1849?—1t 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 order, referring
it to the law officer of the Crown to consider the prayer of
the petition. The certificate is to this effect :—" Report
that the provision of the act for 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 J lily, 1849." That accords with the re-
presentation that I made to the court.
The Commissioner—Yes.

Do me the favour to refer to the entry in the minute-
book of the 13th July, 1849.—This is in 1849, I presume.
There is no year to this.

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, 1849 ?—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 iostalinentstor the transfer of their re-
spective shares, and that a cheque be drawn and placed in
the hands of Mr. Mullens for 201., to be returned, if neces-
sary, 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 ?—I have no doubt
of it, if my name is there.
You have no doubt you were ?—I have no doubt of it.
Is it correct, then, that Mr. Mullein 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 64 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 already pz.l I their instalments to Mr. Mulleus, and
others of them having promised either to pay or secure the
came ?—I cannot dispute the correctness of that.
Then were the shares held by those 64 persons trans-
faired into the name of Mr. Cameron, the general ma-
nager ?—That I cannot say front 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.

Do you fiiid it there stated that Mr. Mullens reported to
the boari 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 501 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 vas laid on the table, engrossed and signed by
Mr. M`Gregor, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Gwynn°,
Mr. Hertz, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Apsley Pellatt ?—No, I
should say I was not, or myname would have been included.
I must have been absent from the room at that time. 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. had the directors of the bank
made a loan to Sir J. M`lienzie of 7,sool.?—They did, to
the best of my recollection. I cannot speak to the date,
but my impression 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
anihoi ised ?—I was present at that meeting.
You say you were present at that meeting ?---Yes.
Can you tell me bow much bad been expended in preli-
lireinary expenses before the 19th of Nov. 1819 ?—I have
not got that in my recollection. It is stated here as 9,5231.
and as it is tho result of Mr. Coleman's figures, I presume
it is correct.
Pas any portion of that amount of 9,5231. lls. 10,1. 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 9,5231.'
I must now ask you distinctly was not a sum of 1,0001.,
which was represented as having been paid for preliminary
expeases, divided amongst some of the directors ?—I be-
lieve a sum about that amount was divided amongst the di-
rectors, but whether they included it in that 9,5231. I do
not know.

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 2 ith of August, 1849?—Yea.
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 6101. in order to pay
John Flemmino., 50/. • Wm. R. Warwick, 20/. ; Wm. D.
the following sums:—
tn raely, James Dixon, 4001.; Archibald W. Blane, 100/. ;
Hay, 40/. ; total Glut. the above being the deposits which
have been resolved to bo 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 beinc,
important the object of my question should ba 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 Corn in ssioner—Yes.
Mr.. Linklater—To return again to this green pocket-
ledger.
Mr. Venning—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 who would not pay up, and to others who
did let that appear.
The Commissioner—lt may appear upon a further ques-
tion, but at present I have only got it that it was trans-
ferred to Cameron.

Have you any means of ascertainine, whether the 1,0007.
so divide,l was included or not ?—The books must show that.
Tien before your next examination you will be able to
ascertain that fact?--I have no doubt I can.
Does your memory enable you to say whether that sum
of 10001. was divided among the directors for their services
in 1849?-4 presume not long before the bank commenced
operations a year must have expired before the division
was made.

Tou presume not long befoie the bank commenced ?—I
should think not.

But does your memory enable yon to say it was that
1,0001. ?--This book will give us the fact of the date of the

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 aro
aiming at.
I am aiming at nothing beyond 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 1,0001. 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 in
that amount for preliminary expenses, Ido not know. It
might be. . .

Mr. Venning—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.

the Commissioner—Does it not appear in the minute-
hook ?

➢ir. Linklater—No. lam entitled to an answer to my
question. 9,523/. lie. 10d. is said to have been expended
in preliminary expenses, and the suggestion is that 1,000/.
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 1,0001. did you receive?—What my
proportion was Ido not know. We paid a much larger
proportion to our governor of the clay, 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, it you refer to the minute of the 19th of October,
1849, you will find that a sum of 5001. was awarded to the
governor and Mr. M`Gregor 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 GOO/. was also
awarded out of the fund of the hank 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 correct ?—Not at all.
You were present at that meeting on the 19th of Nov.,
1841 ?—"Yes.

Were lon 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 unto know on what day of
the month that meeting was held.—The first Friday, what-
ever that day ic. The reports will show.
We will put in the date presently. Was Mr. Cameron ill
at the time of that meeting ?—I think he was not present
at the meetin,,_,.

The Commissioner—That is the sum you spoke of ?
Mr. Linklator—l presume that would be 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
tim e.
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 100/. each?—Yes.
Upon which 50,0 )0/. had been paid ?—Paid, or repre-
sented as paid.
Paid, or represented as paid to the bank, as you have
already stated ?—Yes.
Mr. Mullen, I think, was one of the solicitors to the
bank ?—Yes.
And he died in 1853?—Yes.

lie was absent from the bank for some time?—No, he
was not permanently absent from the bank until, I think,
after the meeting; ho was not at the meeting. And for some
months afterwards he was detained by very serious illness.
lie was not at the general meeting at which you were
appointed govetn)r, and he did not come to the bank for a
considerable time afterwards?—I 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. Paddison—lt was the lat of Felruary, IS5'.
Mr. Yenning—Only convening a meeting.
Mr. Paddison—lt was in February, and the minutes of
tlhneemetr3i.nl
ooffshJaarnehuoair,yietrasyt--o.llTrlrioeweo;scrtc.l:atvhian:risbteheen3lst. sum-
moned to reconsider the resolution passed on Tuesday last,
respecting the directors to retire in rotation at the annual
Lsatir,kiater—You find now you were appointed go.
vernor on the let of February, 18557—yes.
I think for many months after your appointment you
were, say, unremitting in your attendance at the
bankere I may
?—I was there very considerably.
load yoR 990.401011 to refer t 9 the fiereoil accounts contained

In what amount wal Mr. Mullen 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 toll me what is tho total amount of the loss by
the bank through ➢lr. Mullens ?—I dare say it was about
5,0,;0/. or 10,00 a/.
13,0001. 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 knOwu before hi 4 death, but was known t 9 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.
When you say very shortly, do you mean almost immedi-
ately after wardsl—Almost immediately afterwards.
A few days?—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 r,ported as proper securities for the bank
—namely, shipping securities, which led me to investi,-,a'e
the accounts of certain debtors to the bank, and I was de-
termined that no accounts should exist which wore not un-
der my rigid control, and that led me to en 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 tlis person to whose ac-
count your attention was first directed ?—I have no objec-
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 I..dger ? --In 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 ?
Did you refer to the minutes of the finance committee for
-the peepole of -seeing whether th Vlnetints had been
()pitied by their authority ?—No ; I did not think is neces-
sary 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 shoul I be discounted except by their sanction.
Doyou happen to know it as a faet ?—I do not know that that
rule was strictly observed; upon theopening 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 meanin of this entry—
"To the credit of the account of Hugh Innes Cameron,
Edward Esdaile, May 6, 500/.," under the head of "dis-
count?"—A sum of money I took from him upon my own
note and retired at maturity; that i the sum of 5001.
I do not quite understand that ; does nott this entry re-
present a discount by the bank on May 6 for a bill ac-
cepted by you for 5001. ?—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 500/. duo 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 15,0001., you, as governor, allowed your pro-
missory note drawn in his favour to be discounted by the
bank for 5007. ?—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, assumetho form of a renewal every
two months, which carries it forward therefore to the time
that I retired the whole note with interest. It is a continu-
ation of an original transaction, which began on August 16,
1851.

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 501. upon my note. I had never
a drawing account with the bank. That will explain it.
Did Mr. Cameron lend you 590/. before you gave him
your promissory note ?—No, not before.
Did you apply to Mr. Cameron in the month of August,
1854, for the loan of 5001. ?—Yes.
Mr. Cameron consented, as I understand yon, to make the
loan?—Yes.
For that amount, yon gave him a promissory note payable
in his favour ?—Yes.
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 ty him upon the bank ?—I presume so.
At that time I find by this discount account that he owed
the bank upwards of 15,0001.—1 t appeals 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 ?—Most clearly it was a
discount. I never had an account with the bank.
Did you not consider it worth your w bile 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 ho had, because there
were notes paip.ing continually through the bank.
I ask you, did you or did you not know that Mr. Cameron
had 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 so ; at the sime time he
must necessarily have had accounts with the hank, because
he was passing large sums of money f, om 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 yon 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?—He was our general
manager.
He seems to have managed you pretty well. I ask
whether, according to the regulations of the bank, it would
not have been 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 bank, he
presumed, for a transaction of that trivial nature, it was
not necessary. That is the only interpretation that I can
give of it—nor 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
account.
The Commissioner—l mean the bank did not trust to
you ; they trusted Cameron ?—Yes ; therefore it was a
private transaction 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 Eay that.
Did you communicate to any of your fellow-directors
that that transaction had taken place between you ?—I do
not know that I did at the time, but they knew it after-
wards.
How soon after the 16th August did any of your fellow-
directors know that you had obtained that Mg. of
Cameron ?—Not, probably, until I was examining the ac-
count with them.
In the month of February, 1855 ?—Probably.
That promissory note of 5001. became due on November
6th ?—And then it was renewed.
Was it paid by yon 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 500/. become due
on the 6th November !—The accountant through whom
the transaction went chose to revoke the advance in this
form as a renewable obligation until it was paid. 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 duo on rte as -
November 6th is incorrect ?--That is from Mr. Crawford's
char from alvancing money to any person upon the de.
posit of their sheres, Mr. Cameron was the man who ad-
treatment. vanced his money and deposited the shares upon Mr.
And slid not appear upon the face of the note ?—I think • •
Chandler's promissory note, and got that discounted with
not. You will find it so ; the same obligation,
You are
that is how he seems to have managed it.
Did you on November 7th, or November 6th, give to Mr.
examining me upon questions which are _purely of
Cameron a promissory note for 5001. ?—No ; I knew no- •
• an executive character which would not necessarily come
thing about it until I found my cheque for 500/. bef re me as a director.
Yoa gave him no such promissory uott,?—No, not again.
Then this cheque incorrectly represents the transaction 1...
aaamaqn.ite
,aware that details would not come before
when it says that on November 7th the bank- (iiscouuted for
Yes, itunfortunately'h
Ty. direci..orbut the general
result would though.—
Mr. Cameron your promissory note, which b ecame due on
Feb. 6th, for 5001?-1 should say that it (lid, if you will
allow me to say at the time I passed my cheq ue in I said to ~....e. Cameron_
AnN:nwst% 1854,refem dong thouMfirn. dCallnsloPmthna9tB
Brown do you mean s
tahcec account o
discount
the 3d
for of
Mr. Crawford, ' What is your object in ins king all these ...r,ormc T royr Mr. Br
renewals in this way when it is one obligation. 2" Turning up Y
,000 L. I—lt appea so."
Brown's promissory n
Mr. Cameron inottelie.fmoirlth of July, 1854. Mr. Humphrey
this account I observed the same transaction appeared to be that Mr. Humphreyßrownlodged
And does it also appear
repeated over and over again, and I said to our accountant,
" What was the object of treating it in that w ay, when it Bank as securities for the 1,000/. T—lt says
with Mr. Cameron shares belonging to Mr. Humphrey Brown
in the Royal British .
is a simple obligation upon a promissory n,)tt ) I'' and he seenthat thi
depositsi n th ea
aii as
es
aari book.ty
said, " Oh, that is our custom."
Is it the
so here ; bufitrsittistitee
tfihrseterstee
Do I understand you to say that in the nu 'nth of Aug., I c to.' I not. I must have
Incheavoef
1854, Mr. Cameron promised to lend you f, w six monthsexamination of the account originally. lam
the 5001., and that you paid it at the expir. ition of that has become. known to you er m y
seen
it
from
mythose shares
time ?—I will not Bay it was exactly at the ( %Oration ofthe accountof Mr.
Seeing that you permitted
Seeing
now of as security.
six months.
increase from the month of February, 1855, to the time when
When did you pay it ?—I do not know ; it is lumped the bank
closed, both in the discount and in the drawing
ac-
together with the 1,5001. in a very foolish w: .y. I have
counts, and no security
against it, I ask you have youany
never paid more than 5001. explanation to give I—No, I have not. In fact I was not aware
When did you pay it—on the 28th Februar3 r ?—On the of the increment in the accounts until Mr. Cameron finally
28th February. left the bank. When Mr. Cameron resumed his duties, my
Did you pay any interest to Mr. Cameron o n that ad-
attention was then not so positively directed to this account,
inla collulldw notas corroboratedbinased.
You say it is I,so(X—it is incorrect. It is the
Vance ? I presume I did—six per cent. I belie% 13 it was.
Presume ! did yby directors,
,you ?—Yes, I paid interest for the note. inasmuch as I laid downhe a
se ruleaccounts w
should
the that t
same as You will find, if you look at the other side in the account,
three renewals.
that I was instrumental in working down these accounts—
Then it is three times 5001., but as three times i 100/. are
Mr. 'Welton's especially.
debited to the account, it became necessary to put the Do I understand
figures to the credit of the same account ?—I disp rated it you to represent that from February,
with him, the form of the transaction. 1855, down to August, 1856, you did not once refer to the
state of Mr. Cameron's account iu that ledger I—l do not
But you did not pay your 5001. until after it t *came
think I did.
known to you and your fellow directors that. Mr. Ca neron
was so largely indebted to the bank ?—No ; in poi '
rat of Then how often between the month of May, 1855, and
fact I did not. July, 185 G, did you refer to Mr. Cameron's account f--How
What do you mean, in point of fact? often I cannot say, but very repeatedly, calling his attenttihone
Mr. yenning—lt appears to me that that is ap; ;epee to the state of the account—both myself individually aud
answer. committee appointed for the purpose. time to time!
I mean to say, in point of fact, because I always intt ended Did you not find the account increasing from
to take up my note when it became due. It is a mos t un., —No, decreasing. You will find, then it
fair imputation. It is making a great deal of fuse bthat the 15,000/. was reduced down to 12,0001., a
and
A CA it down to 12,0001.,
nothing. It was a simple transaction. went up to 13,0001., and then it went
Mr. Linklater—lt will be for oth . ers to jude o th,, , so on. _ln may, 1855, it
transaction. Is that the first and only trans-A Excuse me. In May he comes back. obligation
action y,u had t. This was an
with Mr. Cameron ?—Yes. was 12,000/ reduced from 15,000 if you look tohaedaceount,
Was he in the habit of accommodating other d' 'running at the time which had
in the same way ?—I do not know. I Irectors which of course
suppose he i raised it to 13,0001. is some expla-
think there were discount accounts under the nate
ton, Humphrey Browns The books will of court i..e '' Wal-
~ aa lion with regard to that.
, l'efor• the month of May,
i waas' -1- . Then it was not reduced 1—No; ::::euntetwbeedre,
4 BhOtt. ..". s ..1 suppose you tecanio A