The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-09-21 00:00:00

Le!yens prepaea!ory to filing a bill in that Court, to
claim a fair participation of the profits of the trades to
which, as a co-partner, I felt myself entitled, sot the
least encoaragemeat was given me to make the in-
.tended application to the Lord Chancellor. It may
,be said, that as I :bad the sanction of the Gan of
King's Beach in favour of this applicatioa, I might
have felt sofficiently bald to prefer the opiaion of fear
Judges to three Conosellors; and so I should had the
legal process in question been simple, and its de-
termination to be looked to withia any reasonable peeled
of time, hat when the perplexity and procrastination of
a hostile suit in Chancery, with so powerful and so
wealthy an opponent as the Bank of Boglaad, together
with thecircametaaceofmybeing la the 75th year of
my agle, is tit akeidered. I Wilk it 111$ be allowed
that it would haveiotten as mach an act of madness, as
folly to haveßled a bill% Mastery safer the dim"'
raging circassatzaces I hoe stated. As end, therefore\
is pit to may fottimealitiopt as my pan to obtain
`dress by an apipesl to &Alpert
.of Law or Equity; but
shield Wiret ! have done excite the attention of some of
the proprietors of Bank stock, who are distinguished in
point of rank, talent, or wealth, and who have no inter-
est in regarding the good Or ill will of the directors, east
should they be induced occasionally to attend the half-
yearly courts held at the Bank, an alteration may take
place in the proceedings there, and by the exertions
of independent proprietors means may be found,
should hope, to obtain half-yearly the productiot
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 that consideration, in what a de-
plorable state is this great trading corporation, an I es-
pecially the wore humble members of it, who have little
else for their support but the interest of their Bank
stock? The direapors may do just what they please,
anti if left to themselves, without any contrail, may
again bring the state of their affairs into time con-
dition to wbicb they were brought in Febin try,
1797. If I ant toll that confidence is mine to them, I an-
swer, that claim is forfeited by what we know from the
secamioations that took place before the committees of
the Lords and Commons in 1797. It appeared from
these examinations, that aftir more than 30 totally inef-
fectual representations to the then Minister, Mr. Pitt,
during the years 1795, 1795, and 1797, on the injurious
consequences resulting to the Bank from the advances
of money made by them to Government and not repaid
In proper time, the distress became so great, that a depn-
*don which was to wait on Mr. Pitt on Saturday, the
theft of February,. 1707,--wnwlastrooted to tell Itha, that-
Vise persevered in the measure he then had in contem-
plation, it threatened ruin to the house, and would I.ty
them under the necessity of shutting up their doors.
Had the mind of Mr. Pitt been less firm and decisive,
and had it not suggested to him the bold, but hazardous
measure of issuing the order of Council fur 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
uf 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 jtstly 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 fur placing implicit contidens:e
in any who have succeeded, or may succeed them ?
While the venerable gentleman was reading a letter,
complaining of want of attention in the Directors; he
was called to order by a proprietor, who insisted that the
latitude which was allowed Mr. tiundry, contrary to the
practice in all deliberate a. ssetnblies, of reading from a
written sreclm, ought not to be made so general awl ir-
regular as to comprehend his reading the written state-
ments of others as well as his own.
The objeetion tvas overruled, and
Mr. Gundry, in conclusion, proposed, as an amend-
ment to the motion from the chair, that the proposed
half yearly dividend be sir, instead of 5 per cent.
On the ameudment being put from the chair:— •
A PROPRIETOR (we understood Mr. Payne, of Bath)
asked how the Court could decide satisfactorily upon
either of the propositions before them, in the absence of
s..nort more speeitic Information respecting the affairs of
the Corporation than they could now refer to ?
No answer was given to this interrogatory.
Mr. D. B. Pavue then replied to the observations
of Mr. Getwav; anti a long altercation then ensued ;
after which the question was again put by the same
Proprietor respecting the Bank affairs for the last six
months.
The Governor replied, it would be unwise upon every
individual. appeal, unsanctioned by a vote of the
Court of Proprietors, to call upon the Directors for
such an explanation as that which the honourable pro-
prietor's question comprehended.
• RATE OP INTEREST.

A Proprietor requested 'permission to address a few
words to the Governor before the question of adjourn-
ment WAS put. A report had gone forth, that it v.as
shortly intended by the directors to recommend a re—
duction in the rate of interest in their discounts, from
sto 4 per cent. It was most important that before
any such intention were "realized, the public should
have full and timely notice of so important a change
—one which most materially affect the value of every.
species of property. This public intimation ought,
he thought, to be given without favour; far it was
.obvious that if die reduction were contemplated, those
whewere timely in the secret must derive what itaight
be considered an unfair ad►antage.
No' answer was given at the moment to this applica.
tion ; bat upon its being renewed before the Court
broke up,

The Goy ernor said in reply, that the Conrt of Di-
rectors were folly impressed with the propriety 5f