The Isle of Wight Bank of Kirkpatrick and Co., is said to present, upon a smaller scale, nearly similar characteristics. It appeared when the creditors met in February last, that the estimated liabilities were about 150,000l.and the estimated assets only 45,000l. In that there was nothing out of the common run of cases; but what struck them as extraordinary was, that this Bank seemed to have been insolvent for forty years, and yet, up to the day it stopped, it was held in the highest estimation, while unbounded confidence was placed in the bankrupt, a retiring character, who lived frugally. Nearly a century ago his grandfather used to travel on foot through the Isle of Wight as a vendor of Scotch goods. At that period the post from London was only twice a week. He settled at Newport, and commenced by passing his IOU's for sums of half-a-crown, which were afterwards increased to seven shillings each. In 1771 he established himself as a Banker, issued one-pound notes, and was very successful, having, at the time Roberts and Gregory started their Bank, in 1788, deposits to an amount exceeding 100,000l., which was, however, diminished, by competition with Roberts and Gregory, to under 80,000l., and still further decreased upon the opening of the present Banking-house of Sir Richard Bassett and Co. From the latter period until the present time, the Bank appeared to be in the most flourishing circumstances. The first founder died in 1796, leaving three sons, John, James, and Joseph, who carried on the business subsequently as partners with James the younger (the present bankrupt), the son of James, and Joseph the younger, the son of Joseph. One of the partners, John, died in 1811; another, James, the father of the present bankrupt, in 1819; and Joseph the elder, in 1820; and his son Joseph, in 1836; leaving only the bankrupt to carry on the business. The representatives of the deceased partners have drawn large sums from the firm, which, it is alleged, they were not entitled to, as, although the affairs of the Bank are supposed to have been wound up, showing a balance in their favour, yet this was effected by greatly overvaluing the property, especially the land, they held in common. The brunt of all seems to have been borne by the present bankrupt.

The failure of Wright and Co., produced great depression in the money-market and a strong sensation in the public mind. For several days credit and confidence seemed paralyzed; all sorts of idle fears and injurious rumours prevailed, and on one morning no less than four London Bankers were currently reported, by name, to have gone to pieces. Wright's stopped in November, 1840, for about a million sterling, and by March, 1842, the joint estate had paid six shillings in the pound. I do, not, however, feel it necessary to say much upon it. The case tells its own story, and needs no comment. When Mr. John Wright published the letter in which he good-naturedly took all the blame of the misfortune upon himself, he confessed that the Bank stopped in consequence of his inability to meet certain commercial engagements contracted by him. That admission explained the whole affair: whether there was more or less of error and culpability, would depend upon accidental circumstances, and leave the event, however distressing, no longer a matter of surprise. A judicious and legitimate Banker will never permit himself to meddle with any business but that of his Bank. His proper sphere is Banking, and nothing but Banking. It is his province to make money by the speculations of other men, but never to take a leading or important part in them. It may be to his interest occasionally to identify his firm with a favourite enterprise, and by so doing to gratify a good connexion and secure a profitable account. Upon such a presumption, he may be justified in holding a few shares; but to enter deeply into any undertaking, however popular and promising, or to attempt to push one forward by making large advances of capital, is a direct contravention of all sound principles, and a sure prelude, as all experience proves, to total and inextricable ruin6.

Wakefield and son were stock-brokers, rather than Bankers; but they received moneys on deposits for investment, and hence obtained a place in the list of London Bankers. The sum for which they failed was something over 173,000l., of which they have paid nothing. The disclosures made when they passed their last examination, called forth an address from the commissioner of unusual severity. I subjoin an abstract of the proceedings.

6 The strong room in Henrietta street contained abundant evidence of the fragile nature of the description of security here adverted to. When the house failed, an idle Baronet, and frequent guest at Mr. John Wright's table in the days of his prosperity, whose love of wit appears to have outweighed his consideration for a friend in adversity, went about with a story, that showed the ruling passion as strong as ever, though on the verge of ruin. He said that going into the private room in the afternoon of the day before the Bank failed, he found the senior partner in close consultation with a noted and very unsuccessful omnibus proprietor. Before the parties was a small model and draft prospectus. "Come in," cried the still enthusiastic speculator, the moment he saw the Baronet; "here is a project to make a fortune by; just what's wanted, and sure to take." And what was the scheme? a joint-stock patent hearse company, for burying the dead of London in the new cemeteries outside town !

Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall Street, July 21, 1841, In Re Wakefield and Son.

The Commissioner (Sir C. F. Williams) stated that the balance-sheets of the bankrupts contained enormities which could not be passed over sub silentio. It was but right the public should know that there were other delinquents besides those who were reached by the criminal law, and this case was one of the foulest which had ever come before him.