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

„
- -r- -

?~

~,..- 4... 7..., .
•
ASV ,c,,-• • ,4tiiij..A4
.r. .F,11.:,. ~ 4 HIII
i"------1
44. ji '1.3
:::i,it:,,,,,,, ~,.0....:,,:::.;5- It
.....„e6. ,
fi,•, Tirloor
..,
rz 0 (
T.
~ s
..,,,, ,
„._
~.
•:::-.1,..1.-, . .
, ,•A
''''''... • 4.".":'.4.'''''''*-1
.'
,o, '1 ' t:ji .....,,Y;1, • 1
f ,
'..,.-
.4,'
81,4 ''' "'" Dr 1 Ir' vlis ~„ 2' , -1/4k,,, ~ko i Al,, ---;,-:o. .g.,.,.. 1..1„,,
... ,
----\
.' Itit
_.—.
....-
1,1,%, \ -.,----

r- ----.-- -- M_-,-(9,,
---

[PRICE 4 1). STAMPED 5

Do you find that the acceptations or notes of 11r. M•Leocl,
Mr. Owen, Mr. Humphrey Brawn, and Mr. Hurlston were
from time to time passed to the account of Mr. Cameron ?
—lt appears they were.
Mr. Venninsr—Will you ask the witness what his object
in borrowing the 5001. was? It will be but fair to the wit-
ness that it should appear.
Mr. Link later— I shall be most happy to attend to any
suggestion that comes from you on the part of Mr. Esdaile,
and I am sure the court will let Mr. Esdaile explain any-
thing he likes upon the subject. I shall be glad to have
any explanation he chooses to give of the object he had in
view in entering into that transaction.
The witness—lt was resolved that -the directors of the
Iday should double the qualification at the bank. It did not
Bait me at the time to devote 500/. from my own resources
to the bank ; an I I said to Mr. Cameron, " Would it be
convenient to you to lend me that upon my promissory note
,for the time ? " and he said certainly, and then it was
merely a question of interest between us. The application
of the 5001. was to take up my ten new shares.
Mr. Venning—To double your stake in the bank in fact.
The witness—That is the history of the transaction.
Mr. Li uklater—Did you apply that 509/. for the payment
of 5001. por share upon ten new shares to be allotted to you
in the bank ?
311.- Venn ing—l think you will wrree with me that it is
not fair that it, should come out.
Mr. Linklater—l am not now dealing with the effect. I

am now dealing with the fact.
Independ.nly of being indebted in upwards of 15,0001.
upon his discount account, did you find, in the month of
February, that Mr. Cameron was also indebted upon his
drawing account in upwards of 2,0001 ?—lf that is the
figure representing the date, yes.
You had better look.—Yes.
Up wards of 2,000/. ?—Yes.
I bud I have Lean rather misleading you and myself by
referring to February, 1836, instead of. February, 1-55, as
to the amount of the overdrawn account. The drawing
account of February, 1855, was under 1,000/., and nut, as
I stated, upwards of 2,000/. ?—Yes.
I find that Mr. Cameron, upon his drawing account, was
in lebted to the bank, in the early part of February, 1855,
in ab tut 8001. ?—More than that. He was very heavy in
credit.
I am showing you, notwithstanding, Mr. Cameron was
indebted upon his drawing account, in the early part of
February, 1855, to the'batik in about 8 ,0/., and upon his
discount account to the amount of 15,0,0/. ; does this book
correctly represent that although you were governor from
February, 18,'5, down to and after June, 1856, you
allowed Mr. Cameron to overdraw his account to the
amount of 3,957/. ?—I dare say it does.
Does it?—From these figures it appears so.
And, although you find in the early part of February,
1855, he was indebted to the bank on his discount account
to be increased so as to leave him indebted to the bank, at
the end of the year 1855, 19,146/. ?—I dare say that must
have appeared after he came back and resumed his func-
tions as manager in May. He came back in May. Will
you allow me, it you please, to look at that account?
[The account was then handed to the witness.]
The Commissioner—Was that all solely upon his own
personal credit?—l had no knowledge of what was going
on as to the account .after that time. After he resumed
his office, in May, I had no further occasion to check that
account beyond a certain amount.
Did you, as governor, or did the Conrtof Directors take
any steps, from the month of Feb.' 1835, down to the time
of the closing of the bank, to double the reduction of
Cameron's account ?—Repeatedly.
The Commissioner—l want to know whether thatl9,ooo/.
and odd was advanced upon Cameron's personal security ?
Mr. Linklater—Yes.
Witness—The transaction came over again repeatedly.
Mr. Linklater—But still the balance remains now. Tell
us who is liable for any portion of that 19,1461. except Mr.
Cameron, and what securities do the bank hold, if any,
against the 19,1461,?—Mr. Cameron is certainly solely ob-
lhant for that amount.
Will you tell me what securities, if any, you obtained
from Mr. Caruer,n for the bank, as against any portion of
that account?—At that time you must. remember the bank
held shares of Cameron in the bank itself, which before
the Miura of the bank were looked upon as good—as so

much Gocurity, but to what extent I do not iquite know,
without knowing what number of shares the bank held of
Mr. Cameron, which must have amounted to some large
amount. They were of large amount. There was a policy
of assurance.
Mr. Linklater—Were you not aware that by the law the
bank had no right whatever to advance one shilling on the
security of its own shares?—lt was not done so. The ad-
vances wore not made upon that seen city, but inasmuch as
Mr. Cameron held the shares, of course the bank was per-
fectly right in insisting upon having them paid over tothem.
Is that bow you run a coach and four through an act of
Parliament? The money was advanced without any secu-
rity at all?—Without my cognisance or of the directors.
With every means of cognisance, if it was not with your
actual cognisanee?—That is where the Inches have been, no
doubt. I admit that.
Mr. Linklator— Were you aware that one of the stipula-
tions of the deed of settlement was for preventing the cork
pany from purchasing any shares, or making advances of
money or securities for money, to any person on security
of shares or share in the partnership business ?—Yes.
Notwithstanding that, were you a consenting party to
receiving his securityin respect of Cameron'saccount shares
standing in the name of theconipany ?—No, not as security

for any distinct advance.
I did not ask you that—Finding the share's, we held
them in property.
Finding the shares, you held them in property 7—Of
41011T80.
Then if amongst the documents found in the vaults cf
the hank there appears this : "Hugh Innes Cameron, Esq.,
19 Royal British Bank shares, deposited by Thos. Chand-
ler, for a loan of 8501., 11th Feb., 1854," it would not be
correct to say that a loan of 8;01. had been made upon
such shares ?—There is an instance in which Mr. Cameron
seems to have advanced upon shares. You were talking
just now of his own advances.
I have something to ask you presently.
The Commissioner—When you say Mr. Cameron knew,
you mein the bank, I suppose ? —No, I don't ; I mean Mr.
Cameron acting for the bank.
Mr. Cameron acting for the bank is the bank. What
,I
mean is, was it not your loan with Mr. Cameron ?—lt was
not with the cognisance of the court.
Just refer to this account of Thomas Chandler. Do you
find that the bank discounted for Thomas Chandler on 1 lth
Feb., 1854, Mr. Hugh lopes Cameron's promissory note for
8501.7 It appears to be so, but I was not aware of it.
Do you find by the memorandum in this bundle contain-
ing shares of the bank that for securing the repayment of
that 8501. Thomas Chandler deposited 19 shares in the
Royal British Bank 7—Yes ; it appears that was a trans-
action between Chandler and Cameron.
Then I suppose you are now aware that was an exceed.
ingly irregular transaction according to the charter of the
bank 7—Yes, according to the charter.
Was Thomas Chandler one of the auditors of the bank ?
—He was.
When did you first learn—if you ever did learn, before
this moment that Mr. Chandler had obtained from'thebank
a loan of 8501. for the shares of the bank ?—I suppose the
knowledge must have come to me about the time I looked
through this book.
In February, 18557—1 suppose so.
Did you get the money from Mr. Chandler?—No, I think
Mr. Linklater, these shares must be looked upon simply as
a collateral security. The promissory note to Chandler
was a simple matter of discount.
That is one way of getting out of the requirements of
the charter. Perhaps you will refer again to the account
of Cameron, the discount account of the 3d August, 1654.
The Commissioner could there be a discount without any
other name?
Mr. Linklater—lt would be a promissory note payable
to Mr. Cameron, endorsed by Mr. Chandler to the bank.
That I suppose would be the transaction 7—Let me look
again at Mr. Chandler's account. I do not see now Mr.
Cameron's promissory note. Mr. Chandler held the pro-
missory note, which was discounted upon the faith, I
presume, of Mr. Cameron. We believed him to be a man
possessed of freehold property to some extent.
So that it would appear that Mr. Chandler, the auditor,
being indebted to Mr. Cameron, the manager, gave Mr.
Cameron, the manager, a promissory note for 8501., which
would necessarily be dealt with by Mr. Cameron, the mana-
ger, and that would be discounted by the bank, and debited
to Mr. Chandler, who deposited his security for shares in
the bank ; that is the transaction 2—No, I presume not ;
you are rather mystifying it. Mr. Chandler required 8504 ;
he comes to Mr. Cameron as the actuary of the bank, and
says "Will you a lvance me that money upon my promissory
note. I can put into your bands as collateral securityshares
which I hold in this•corporation."
But - the bank were restricted by the terms of their