The affairs of the private Banks were not adjusted with equal dispatch or satisfaction. At the time of Esdaile's stoppage, 150,000l. was raised by the City Bankers, and placed with the Bank of England, as a security for some advances made by the directors to relieve that firm in its difficulties. That money lies in the Bank to this day. Of the dividends declared by the other bankrupts, the best was that realized on the Messrs. Fosters1 estate, which has paid, I believe, something more than twelve shillings in the pound.

The years 1837, 1838, and 1839 were barren of incidents connected with the subject before us. To seven new joint-stock Banks formed in 1837, only one was added in 1838. The most interesting fact, however, connected with the progress of these institutions, is the number of private Banks that had by this time merged into joint-stock establishments. They were computed to have been not fewer than 130 in 1839, during which year the old and respectable house of Sir M. W. Ridley, Biggs, and Co., of Newcastle, also resolved itself into a joint-stock company. Others have since followed their example, but it is unnecessary to particularize them.

Another dark and heavy period was now approaching, throughout which there was no such dearth of incident as that I have just adverted to. In turning to give a slight and imperfect account of it, I feel one consolation, - it is my closing office of this nature, and covers the last scene of pressure and calamity I shall have to describe. Late in 1840 began the storm which, continuing to rage all through 1841, and not even as yet quite blown over, has swept away during its protracted and ruinous course, an unusual number of Banking establishments. A history of these misfortunes in their various details is here out of the question; to trace the separate cases to their source, and detail at length the consequences they involved, would fill a volume, and then, in all probability, leave the subject unexhausted. I can do no more than give a list of the names and places as they have occurred, to which I shall add a few words upon some cases which seem to challenge observation more than the rest.

Arundel - Hopkins, Drewett, and Co.

Atherstone - Weaver, Walsh, and Co.

Bath - Hobhouse and Co.

Berwick-on-Tweed - Batson, Wilson, and Co.

Brighton - Wigney and Co.

Cambridge - T. D. Barker.

Canterbury - Halford and Co.

Chichester - Ridge and Co.

Guildford - Lee and Co.

- Sparkes and Son. Holywell - Douglas, Small, and Co. London6 - Hammersleys and Co.

- Johnson and Co.

- Marylebone Bank.

- Wakefield and Son.

- E. Weedon.

- Whitmore, Wells, and Co.

- Wright and Co.

- Young and Sons. Manchester - Daintree, Kyle, and Co.

- Barker and Malcomson.

- Commercial Bank of England.

- Imperial Bank of England. Newcastle - Emlyn W. Marsden. Newton - Wise and Co.

6 The number of London Bankers has been further diminished by the retirement of Messrs. Ladbroke, Kingscote, and Co. from business, and the incorporation of Messrs. Dorriens, Magens, and Co. with the Messrs. Currie.

Portsmouth - Busbey and Co. Penrith - R. Drewry. Penryn - Atkinson, Craig, and Co. Petersfield - Hector, Lacy, and Co. Bamsgate - Austen and Sons. Hyde - Kirkpatrick and Co. Shrewsbury - Price and Co. Teignmouth - Langmead and Co. Walsall - Barber and Co. - Walsall Joint-stock Bank. York - Campion and Co.

This, it must be confessed is a formidable list; I look upon it with pain, and advert to it with reluctance. There is, no doubt, much about it to excite feelings of honourable commiseration, because, unquestionably, there lies under it much innocent misfortune and unmerited suffering; but there are main outlines so strongly marked; some of the circumstances disclosed are, in many instances, so startling; the general case often appears to be so fully made out, while the minor details are unsusceptible of formal proof without uncommon labour and difficulty; suggestions and suspicions force themselves so repeatedly on the mind, not merely of confidence abused and money lost, but of the most sacred trusts violated, and pledged securities misapplied to an enormous amount7; the sales of private effects show partners living in a style of the Ex Parte Vincent Eyre, in re Biddulph, Wright, and Co., Respondents. - Judgment. - Sir J. Cross: The petitioner, Mr, Eyre, had various dealings with Messrs. Wright and Co., and also with Mr. John Wright alone; and it appears that a deed-hox was kept at the Bank for the deposit of securities belonging to him, and containing, at the date of the commencement of these transactions, Cuba bonds for upwards of 50,000l, bearing interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum. In September, 1838, Mr. Wright wrote to Mr. Eyre asking the loan of 25,000l. Cuba bonds, on the deposit of 400 certificates of shares in the Southampton railway, until the bonds should be replaced, which was promised to be done within four months. This was assented to, and subsequently 429 Southampton railway shares were deposited, on arrangement for replacement before April, 1840. Afterwards, Mr. John Wright, in contravention of the agreement, and without the cognizance of the petitioner, withdrew the railway shares from the place of deposit, and left others of less value. The first question was, whether there was a provable debt on this loan of Cuba bonds? Subsequently to the original hearing of this case, he (Sir J. Cross) had requested the attention of counsel to the case of "Utterson and Vernon " (3 Term Reports, 548), and had asked that the case should be re-argued with especial reference to that particular case. The Court of King's Bench therein decided in favour of the debt; but the question was re-considered on the wish of the Lord Chancellor, and ultimately the Court of King's Bench held that there was not a provable debt, on the ground of there having been a breach of contract before the bankruptcy. In King's case (8 Vesey) a similar case was decided by Lord Eldon, which was followed in " Ex-parte Cannon" (16 Vesey). The question, therefore, was, whether in this transaction there was a breach of trust before the date of the bankruptcy. There was the loan of Cuba bonds replaced by railway shares, but the borrower withdrew the latter, and was bound most costly and luxurious indulgence, while their accounts have been over-drawn for years, and many then to have replaced the bonds. He had not done so, but had violated his agreement, and Mr. Eyre was entitled to come in as a creditor against the separate estate on the value of the bonds at the date when the contract was broken, and the securities withdrawn. As to the securities deposited instead of those removed, Mr. Eyre would be entitled to have them sold in the usual way; but he would not be entitled to any interest on the bonds after the date of the breach of contract. It had been contended that the whole partnership was liable on account of the breach of trust by Mr. John Wright; but he was of opinion that the transaction stood between Mr. Eyre and Mr. Wright alone; that the partners knew nothing of it, received no benefit thereby, and were not liable for any loss thereon. The second case related to the subsequent loan of the residue of the Cuba bonds, amounting to 28,000l.; and between the two cases there existed a substantial and essential difference. The terms were to be found in a letter written by John Wright to the petitioner, by which it appeared that the bonds were borrowed on accouut of the house, on deposit of 33,000l. Norris-town and Valley (United States) railway bonds, with an undertaking to replace the Cuba bonds, if required, at the expiration of three months. If it had been so required, the petitioner would have been entitled to prove his debt; but as it never was demanded, the proof was inadmissible in that respect, for it could not be constituted a provable debt. But there was another claim. It was agreed that interest at the rate of six per cent. should be payable so long as the bonds were retained by the borrowers, and credit appears to have been actually given for the interest in the banking account. These arrears constituted a provable debt to the amount of above 4001. The only other question which remained was relative to the sale of the shares deposited in reference to this second loan. As the petitioner had not established a provable debt, he (Sir J. Cross) could not order a sale of the securities deposited; but he saw no reason why the petitioner should not retain them for his own of their customers have been brought to beggary by the profligacy with which their substance has thus been squandered; - such things, and others equally criminal and culpable, present themselves so often and in such aggravated forms, that a glance at their magnitude suffices to show, that the task of properly exposing and correcting them, cannot rest with an individual; higher powers and a more searching authority are demanded for a labour so vast in proportion to the sum of the national wealth with which it deals.

7 Court of review. - July 27, 1841.