Star.
London, England, 1821-09-21 00:00:00

~~~i/

PRICE SE \

tended application to the Lord Chancellor. It may be said, that
as I had the sanction of the Court of King's Bench in favour of
this application, I might have felt suniciently bold to prefer the
opinion of four Judges to three Counsellors; and so I sfunild,
had the legal process in question been simple, and its determina-
tion to be looked to within any reasonable period of time • but
when the perplexity and procrastination of a hostile suit in Chan-
cery, with's° powerful and as wealthy an opponent as the Bank
of England, together with the circumstance of my being in the
75th year of my age, is duly considered, I think it will be allowed,
that it would have been as much an act of madness, as of folly,
to have filed a bill in Chancery under the discouraging circum-
stances I have stated. An end, therefore, is put to any further
attempt on my part to obtain redress by an appeal to a Court
of Law or Equity ; but should what I have done excite the at-
tention of some of the Proprietors of Bank Stock who are dis-
tinguished in point of rank, talent, or wealth, and who have no
interest in regarding the good or ill will of the Directors, and
should they be induced occasionally to at:end the hall-yearly
Courts held at the Bank, an alteration may take place in the
proceedings there, and by the exertions of independent Proprie-
tors, means may be found, I should hope, to obtain half-yearly
the production of a balance sheet at least, and some consequent
examination of the state and profits of the trade. If this can by
no means be effected, If the Directors are permitted to act the
farce of calling the Proprietors together to consider of a dividend,
without supplying them with any the least document for their
consideration, in what a deplorable state is this great trading
Corporation, and especially the more humble members of it, who
have little else for their support but the interest of their Bank
stock. The Directors may do just what they please, and if left
to themselves, without any controul, may again bring the state
of our affairs into the condition to which they were brought in
February, 1797. If lam told that confidence is due to them, I
answer, that claim is forfeited by what we know from the exa-
minations that took place before the Committees of the Lords
and Commons in 1797. appeared from those examination;:,
that after more than thirty totally ineffectual representations to
the then Minis:er, Mr. Pitt, during the years 1795, 1796, and
1797, on the injurious consequences resulting to the 13::nk from
the advances of money made by them to Government and not
repaid in proper time, the distress hecame so gre,r, that a Depu-
tation which was to wait on Mr. Pitt U7l Satutsiay, the :25E4 of
February, 1797, was instructed to tell him, that if be pit-sever:l
in the measure he then had in contemplation, it threatened ruin
to the House, and would lay them under the necessity of shut-
ting up their doors. Had the mind of Mr. Pitt been less firm
and decisive, and had it not suggested to hint the bold, but ha-
zardous measure of Issuing the Order of Council for restricting
cash payments, it is easy to see, from the probable drain of cash,
what, at the end of the week, must have been the situation of
the Bank, and consequently of the whole kingdom. Such; then,
being the proof of the conduct of the Directors of the Bank
during the three years alluded to, may it not justly be said, that
unless the Gentlemen then composing the Direction are to be
stigmatized as deficient in ability and integrity, what reason can
be given for placing implicit confidence in any who have suc-
ceeded, or may succeed them?
While the venerable Gentleman was reading a
letter, complaining of want of attention in the Direct
ton, he was called to order by a Proprietor, who in-
' sisted that the latitude which was allowed Mr. Gun-
dry, contrary to the practice in all deliberative as-
semblies, of reading from a written speech, ought
not to be made so general and irregular as to com-
prehend his reading the written statements of others
as well as his own.—The objection was overruled, and
Mr. GUNDRY, in conclusion, proposed, as an
Amendment to the motion from the Chair, that the
proposed half yearly Dividend be six, instead of five,
per Cent.
The Amendment having been seconded, was, after
a few observations from Mr. PAYNE and others, put
and negatived by a large majority
Mr. GUNDRY was again proceeding to address the
Court, when a Proprietor rose and moved that the
Court do now adjourn—(Hear, hear).