The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-02 00:00:00

the matter, and no determination was come to upon it. LAW IHe was sorry that the Hon. Proprietor had not received an
answer. .

A PROPRIETOR asked a question on a point that
had caused some sensation in the public, and some
anxiety in him as a Proprietor—it was the alleged connection
of this Bank with the iiarylehone Bank. It had been stated
that the Mary!ebone Bank had been indebted to the London
and Westminster Bank to the amount of 25,0001. He wished
to know whether the report of that connexion was true, and
also what had been their account viol' the Marylebone, Rank.
He had felt considerable surprise at reading the report that the
Marylebone Bank had been carried on on alarge advance made by
this Bank to it. He did not understand the pulley oi a connexion
of this kind with that. Bank. He wished to know whether the
statement of 25,000/. being due to them was true, and how the
acc.iunt stood ?

The CH mastAN said that all the money lent to the Maryle-
bone.
Bank had been honourably repaid, with the exception of
1,8001. which he believed would soon come in, and for which
this Bank held abundact and undeniable security. With regard
to that portion of the question referring to the connexion'. etween
this Bank, and the Alarylebone Bank, they had never
had any connexion with it at all. The Alarylebone
Bank, as was known he believed to all London, got into
difficulties, and the Directors on looking into the
concern found it was impossible to go on. and therefore acted
as honourable men would do. They found that they were
liable to the ,üblic for certain sums of money, which
they wished to pay as soon as they could, without the
odium of closing their d0,1.s in a sudden manner; but
they found themselves unable to do it. They applied to the
London anti Westminster Bank for a loan, and this bank agreed to
wind up their concerns, and for the money, which, with the excep-
tion he had mentioned, had been honourably repaid, good security
was given. This bank was not atall mixed up with the Alarylebone
Bank but merely acceded to their request for a loan of a certain
sum of money, without which they would be unable to close their
doors with honour to themselves. He should add in addition that
an advantage was held out to this Bank from the probability of
securing the best customers of the Marylebone hank ; this effect
of the loah had occurred. The whole amount lent was 15,0001.
The PROPRIETOR expressed his satisfaction at the answer
his question had received ; the sum stated was 25,0001., and it
was not known to the public that any part of the loan had
been repaid. He also expressed his satisfaction that the loan was
not made for the purpose of enabling the Bank to be carried
on,—(The Chairman—Quite the reverse) —but to enable it to
ciose with credit. The answer had removed a wrong impres-
sion frum his mind.

The CHAIRMAN said that at the time of mak-
ing the advance, it was considered whether the re-
port of a connection with the Marylebone Bank might
not be prejudicial to this establishment, and whether it
was not advisable to insert a public denial in the newspapers;
but if they went before the public with a denial of everything
that was asserted they might do nothing else.—( Hear, hear.)
It was possible that some parties were lying by to know th.., ef-
fect, and in that case they might not take any shares. He threw
out the idea that if there were any parties who exceeded the
measure of grace they might now'apply, that their shares issued
should be sold for the benefit of the hank.
The Report was then put and passed unanimously.
Mr. WHEELER said he should now submit a motion to the
effect that the shares should be sold for the benefit of the Com-
pany, or for the benefit of the reserved fund.
Mr. LEVY seconded the motion, and read the 33d clause of
the deed of settlement, to shew that it was lawful that the
shares of those who had not paid up their calls in the regular
time might be disposed of for the benefit of the others.
The CHAIRMAN said the residue of the 10,000 shares
amounted to 40,0001.

Mr. TITE suggested that " at the discretion of the Direc-
tors" should be added to the motion.
Mr. WHEELER said that the present time was;the best.
An Hort. PROPRIETOR said that Le did not think the re-
served calls should be disposed of.
Mr. T,TE said his impression was that the power should be
left to the Directors to dispose of the shares, and he would end
with an amendment to that effect.

Mr. WHEELER said it was not his intention that the Direc-
tors should be deprived of that power. He thought those who
had been written to whether in the East or West Indies, and
who had sufficient time to answer, ought to have their shares
disposed of. He was out of England himself for some time, but
he left money irr his bank for the payment of his shares. He,
therefore, thought that those shares ought to be disposed of.
Mr. Wheeler then concluded with the following motion—
" That it be recommended to the Directors to dispose of the
unappropriated shares, so as to make up the whole number
issued to an amount of 40,0001."
Sir JOHN KIRKLAND said, that he should, in consequence
of the motion which had been made, trespass on
the time of the meeting for a short time. He
hoped the meeting would not insert upon the strict letter of
the rule. He thought it would be sufficient if the Board of
Directors were to understand that in each instance of appro-
priating shares to Shareholders in the situation alluded to by
the Hon. Proprietor, it was not sufficient that the Proprietor
should come forward and claim his share, on payingup his interest,
but that in each instance the Directors should, by inquiry, satisfy
themselves that the application was made bona fide, and would
have been made in time it circumstances had permute, and that
the delay w inch had taken place had been unavoidable. The Board
would satisfy themselves that in each ease the party had not known
of the opportunity of taking their shares until they had made
their application. It would not be wonderful that out of tioo
or 900 letters some few should miscarry. He would, there-
fore, ask would it be fair to deprive those Proprietorsof the ad-
rant ageof taking those shares. Would they impose upon the Di-
rectors the necessity of saying to sucn Proprietors that they could
not afford the relief. Would they tie up the hands of the
Directors in such a manner as to give them no option, but to
refuse the claims of such applicants as were placed in the
s'tuation he had described ? ( Hear, hear.) He hoped
that what he ban suggested would have the effect of inducing
the meeting to recommend to the Court of Directors to take
such steps as might be necess-try to ascertain the real state of
each case, and to act accordingly, and empowering them to dispose
of the shares in a manner the most advantageous to the Com-
pany, so as not to produce anything like a glut of shares in the
market, and at the same time to dojus,tice,to all parties. The
Directors had, in simtlar cases, considered it their duty to give
no privilige to any parties in taking shares which they did not
think fairly belonged to them. The Directors had not thought
themselves, at liberty on the mere payment of the interest, to
assign the shares. but they had in every case felt it their
duty to make proper inquiries.
Mr. 'IITE supported his own views as to the propriety of a
recommendation being made to the Directors, notwithstand-
ing what had fallen from Sir J. Kirkland.
The CHAIRMAN was about to put the question, when
Mr. WHEELER said he could not agree with what Sir J.
Kirkland had said. He thought that a delay of six months
I was quite enough ; and after such a lapse of time
the Proprietor had for feited all claim. They must
all have had notice, because they must all have received their
dividends in the interim, and any delay that might have
occurred must have taken place through the carelessness of the
parties themselves. Ile, for one, could not see why they
should lose their profits to benefit careless people.
After a few words from Mr. TxTE,
Mr. SAromosss said that be thought Sir J. Kirkland's pro-
position had been misunderstood. If he shares unappropriated
were very few, and the Directors felt that it was their duty to
accommodate the Proprietors as far as with justice they could
do so. If the Proprietors wished the Directors to act in a
more stringent manner, they had but to command them to do
so, and the Directors would pay implicit obedience to the
wishes of the Proprietors.
Mr. SAINSBURY wished to know if it waacompetent for the
Directors to take such steps without theauthority of
.the Proprie-
tors. He would only say that one of the Directors thought it neces-
sary to direct a considerable amount of explanation to a point
which appeared to him to require no explanation at all.
The CHAIRMAN having read the resolution,
Mr. TITE thought that the only question was in what man-
ner the shares could be best disposed of for the benefit of
the Company. That object was not he thought met
by the resolution now proposed, he should therefore m ye
an amendment. It was to the effect that the Directors be
requested to declare such shares as should appear forteited to
be so forfeited, anti to take steps to dispose of them as
would be best for the benefit of the Company.
Mr. WALES seco- ded the amendment.
A PRorilE•roi thought it would be necessary to pass both
the resolution and the amendment, or at least two resolutions
to the effect of both of the original resolution and the amend-
!ment upon it.
Mr. WALES seconded the adoption of the amendment, Le-
i cause it would apply to the new forteited shares, whereas the
original resolution would only apply to the old shares.
' - A PROPRIETOR wished to ask to how many of the 500 forfeit-
ed shares the Proprietors were entitled to.
The SECRATARY, in reply, re, d from a circular, addressed
to the Proprietors a statement of the manner in which it was
intended to dispose of the shares referred to.
Sir C. BuItRELL wished to know from the Solicitor of the
Company whether the statement just read was perfectly in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the deed of settlement, appli-
cable to this particular question. He would request the So-
licitor to read the section of the deed to which he referred.
The SOLICITOR said that the section was the 33d, and he
woula read it to the meeting. He ;accordingly read the sec-
tion, showing that the proposed application of shares was per-
fectly legal.
After some further conversation, which was altogether of an
explanatory character, and referring chiefly to the terms
of the circular, addressed by the Directors to the share-
holders, respecting the terms on which the latter would be al-
lowed to appropriate the forfeited shares,
Mr. Tyra said that lie had a motion to propose,
which he thought would meet the views of all parties
on this subject. It was, that the Directors be now
authorised and requested to sell or dispose of such of the
10,000 shares as had not been paid up, or otherwise disposed
of. so far as they could do it in a legal and proper manner,
the amount from this proceeding to be carried to the
amount of the paid-up capital, and the premium to the reserved
fund. He proposed this as an amendment to Mr. Wheeler's ,
motion.
Mr. WALES seconded the motion.
A PROPRIETOR thought the Directors ought to have sold or
appropriated those shares before now.
Mr. SAINTSBDRY wished to make some remarks, but was
called to order by
Sir CHARLES BURRELL, who said that according to the
rules of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, no
speech should be made after the proposition of an amendment.
Mr. SAINTSBURY, however, relied upon the authority of
Mr. Melviile, the Secretary of the East India Company, who
had published a book on points of form, and who said that a
member had a right to speak on a proposition, even alter the
ayes had been taken, but not after the noes.—( A laugh.)
'1 he amendment and original motion were then succes-
sively put, but there was a large majority in favour of the
amendment.
Sir R. ARMSTRONG had much satisfaction -in directing the
attention of the Proprietors to the profitable business the Bank
had done during the past year, considering the great distress
that had existed in the commercial world. But for this, no
doubt they would have done a much larger business. No doubt
the Directors must have had many applications for loans made to
them. It appeared under all circumstances that their selec-
tion of business had been steady in every particular.
They had made large profits, which could not have
been done w ithout great exei lions on the part of the Directors,
to whom the Proprietors were under great obligations. He
therefore moved a vote of thanks to the Directors for their able
management of the Bank during the last year.
Mr. MA UDSLEY seconded the motion. He felt deep grati-
tude to the Chairman anti Directors fur the explanation they had
rendered as to the manner in which the eoacerns of the Bank'
had been mixed up with the Marylebone Bank. He beli ved
now, though he did not formerly, that the Directors had acted
upon the most henoursb e motives in interfering with respect
to that concern.
Mr. Buow we said that tire explanation given bysthe Direc-
tors was most satisfactory to him, and he felt sure that the
concern could not be placed in better hands.
The Resolution was carried unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN returned thanks on behalf of the Directors
and himself. He could assure the Proprietors that the
strictest attention had been paid to their interests during the
last precarious year, and their great care had been to protect
the property of the Proprietors..
The re-election of the three retiring Directors was then
proposed and seconded, and carried unanimously.
•
A vote of thanks were then passed to the respective Ma-
nagers for their services during the past year, and to the
Chairman, for the courteous and able manner in which he bad
presided over the proceedings, and the meeting then eeparat.eds

NTELLIGENCE

CHANCERY-(THIS DAY.)
The Lord Chancellor sat in Lincoln's Inn.hall to day.
SITTINGS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Lona CHANCELLOR, on taking his seat, stated that he had ori-
ginally arranged to sit in the House of Lords three days a week for
the purpose of hearing appeals. Since that arrangement had been made,
however it had been determined by several Noble Lords and him-
self, that it would be better for him to sit in the House of Lords
two days in one week and four in another. It was his intention,
therefore, to sit next week in the House of Lords four days.
IN THE MATTER. OF .DERD•M, THE BANKRUPT.
The further arguments in this part.heard matter, which came be.
fore his Lordship upon a special case, from the decision of the
Court of Review, occupied the Court the whole morning.
His Lordship rose at an early hour to attend a Council.

VILE-CHANCERY.-(THIS DAY )

(Before the VICE-CIIANCIILLOR‘ Of ENGLAND.)
BRYDGES 1/. BRAN ILL.
The further arguments on this part heard case, occupied bil
Honour the whole day.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Wivaste.)
This case came before the Court upon an original and suppleniental
bill. The plaintiffs in both causes were Messrs. Crawford, Colvin.
and Co., who carried on business, in partnership, in the City d
London, as East India merchants. The object of the suit was to
compel two classes of defendants to interplead in respect of
sum of 496/. 19s. 6d., the subject of the original suit, and
6/. 16s. ed., the subject of the supplemental. The suit
arose out of the consignment of certain goods in 1835 and 1836,
by the firm of Messrs. Copeland and Duncotne, which had since
became bankrupt, on behalf of the firm of Messrs. Baisley and
Hanslar, which had also become bankrupt. The plaintiff and da•
fetalant were the assignees of the two bankrupt firms.
His HONOUR, after commenting upon jail the proceedings; said
the decree prayed must be made in both cases.

INSOLVENT CO URT-(T HIS DAY)