A specific enumeration of the practical difficulties encountered by joint-stock Banks in the ordinary course of business, was made in a letter addressed to Lord Melbourne, January 30th, 1839, and signed, "On the part of the Committee of Deputies of Joint-stock Banks," by their chairman, Mr. Patrick Maxwell Stewart, now member for Renfrewshire. The chief alterations solicited on that occasion by the Banks were,

"1st. That the law should render permanent the Act 1 and 2 Vict. cap. 96, enabling joint-stock Banks to sue their own members.

"2nd. That the law should enable joint-stock Banks to prosecute criminally any shareholder who shall be guilty of a fraud upon the company.

"3rd. That the law should permit any shareholder to appear as an evidence in a cause in which the company may be either plaintiff or defendant, or in any criminal proceeding at the instance of the company.

"4th. That the law should more explicitly declare, that no shareholder who is not duly authorized, shall have the power of binding the company, and should render it penal to make the attempt.

"5th. That the law should more explicitly declare, that legal notices shall be valid only when served on the principal officer of the company, or addressed to him officially at his head office.

"6th. That the law should declare that no shareholder shall, as such, be liable to the operation of the laws of bankruptcy.

"7th. That the law should permit an assignee to a bankrupt's estate to lodge the money, with the consent of the creditors, in a joint-stock Bank in which the assignee may be a shareholder.'"

These are sensible proposals, and will, in all probability, be made law, when Parliament deals, as it is expected to do, with the subject of Banking generally, upon the approaching termination of the Bank of England charter. Lord Melbourne's ministry was evidently not indisposed to give the joint-stock Banks relief from the more galling restrictions under which they have still to contend. In the Bank of Ireland Renewal Bill, introduced by Mr. Spring Rice just before he ceased to be chancellor of the exchequer, were some important concessions, which it may not be amiss to mention. Bankers, though exceeding six in number, were to be allowed to draw and accept bills of exchange payable at not less than ten days' sight, and for not less than 10l. in amount; and although issuing notes at places fifty miles from Dublin, they were allowed houses of business within that limit, provided they neither issued nor reissued notes at such houses, and kept no cash, deposit, or drawing accounts at them. The bill, however, was lost, and the proposed concessions with it.

Various as these points and suggestions are, respecting both private and joint-stock Banks and Bankers, a general consideration of the question, and the reflections prompted by a patient review of the progress of Banking, and the more conspicuous results produced by the systems in operation, would not lead me to recommend many new measures in the law as it stands. There is much unquestionably which I think ought to be removed; but I would not re-enact to the same extent that I would repeal. It is not always by making rules and laying down penal injunctions, that the commission of evil is prevented and the promotion of good secured. The legislator is most likely to succeed in this laudable aspiration, who takes care to keep the stage clear, and the field open for the introduction of good measures - bad ones cannot long bear a competition with them, if both be left without undue influence to bias the common sense of mankind. In the removal of all distinctions and privileges, and a general equalization of the modes and terms upon which the business of Banking shall be carried on, we see nothing more than is consistent with reason and equity. I would therefore remove impediments, and leave every thing as free as possible.

A distinction must always be preserved between private and joint-stock Banks. From the former if they issued notes, I would demand a weekly return of the amount in circulation, and I would have that return regularly advertised in at least two newspapers, having the largest circulation in the locality concerned. In all other respects I would leave the private Banker to the confidence of his customers.

From the joint-stock Banks I would exact some further obligations on the ground of public policy. Publicity is the great corrector of evil: I would therefore ensure a fair measure of publicity above all things. I would require from them, as a matter of course, a publication of issues such as that demanded of the private Banker. I would remove the vexatious and impolitic restrictions against which they have for some years been remonstrating. I would have them make public a quarterly account of their assets and liabilities, according to a prescribed form, which without being too searching, or improperly revealing details, should present a fair view of the condition and resources of every Bank. I would insist upon a full audit once a year of the whole affairs of the company by competent persons specially appointed for the purpose, not by the directors, but by the shareholders at a public meeting; and I would have the balance sheet of the accounts after having been thus audited, subscribed before a magistrate by the auditors upon their solemn asseveration in lieu of an oath, with a certificate annexed as to the correctness of their audit, the correspondence of the accounts themselves with the quarterly returns to be published as already suggested, and the general conformity of the transactions with legitimate Banking principles. I would make it a misdemeanour upon the part of the auditors to give a false or wilfully incorrect certificate; and whenever a joint-stock Bank failed, I would have its affairs wound up by a competent bankruptcy officer7.

I shall conclude this long, but I hope not tedious chapter, for it is not barren of important facts and useful suggestions, with a short notice of the joint-stock Banks of London, and an account of the circulation of the private and joint-stock Banks of the United Kingdom, down to the date of the last Parliamentary return upon the subject.